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.

This. 
But the underlined I disagree with. Those 6th ed supplements are written in a different way to the 7th ed ones. 
They simply work differently, and have rules / FAQs that allow their use. 

What rules/FAQs?

A Clan Raukaan or Sentinels of Terra Detachment would be any Detachment that uses the appropriate supplement and is allowed to use the Iron Hands or Imperial Fists Chapter Tactics respectively, whereas the Champions of Fenris(?) book states that it must be a Detachment or Formation presented in the Champions of Fenris(?) book.

Underlined is not correct, I've bolded the word causing the biggest issue with the sentence.

 FlingitNow wrote:

A Clan Raukaan or Sentinels of Terra Detachment would be any Detachment that uses the appropriate supplement and is allowed to use the Iron Hands or Imperial Fists Chapter Tactics respectively, whereas the Champions of Fenris(?) book states that it must be a Detachment or Formation presented in the Champions of Fenris(?) book.

Underlined is not correct, I've bolded the word causing the biggest issue with the sentence.

I'm only going on what I'm being told is the wording.
This is why I said if what grendel posted is the correct wording.

 grendel083 wrote:

It's in the rule "Relics of the Great Wolf"
"part of a Detachment or Formation presented in this book”

Is that not a "must" enough?

Also, is there no wording in the supplement along the lines of "take CAD or the following"? it's worded so in the Codex

I'm only going on what I'm being told is the wording. 
This is why I said if what grendel posted is the correct wording.

Nothing in the wording posted by Grendel stated must. That rule gives access to the CoF rules under a certain circumstance nothing states that is the only way to get access to those rules.

Is that not a "must" enough? 

Also, is there no wording in the supplement along the lines of "take CAD or the following"? it's worded so in the Codex

No see above.

So where else is permission granted?

True the word must is not used. So where else does it say you can?

As far as I can see, permission has only been granted for models taken from a Detachment or Formation from the Supplement. No where else.

If you have found a rule granting permission for them to be taken in other situations, then please quote it.

 grendel083 wrote:
So where else is permission granted?

True the word must is not used. So where else does it say you can?

As far as I can see, permission has only been granted for models taken from a Detachment or Formation from the Supplement. No where else.

If you have found a rule granting permission for them to be taken in other situations, then please quote it.

I think you miss understood me. I'm not saying there is definitive permission (or not) in the BrB to take a Supplement CAD, just stating if you believe there isn't (as you're claiming with no CoF CAD) then you can't take a CAD of any 6th Ed supplement (or indeed any detachment type).

Which is a pretty big flaw in your logic.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
So where else is permission granted?

True the word must is not used. So where else does it say you can?

As far as I can see, permission has only been granted for models taken from a Detachment or Formation from the Supplement. No where else.

If you have found a rule granting permission for them to be taken in other situations, then please quote it.

I think you miss understood me. I'm not saying there is definitive permission (or not) in the BrB to take a Supplement CAD, just stating if you believe there isn't (as you're claiming with no CoF CAD) then you can't take a CAD of any 6th Ed supplement (or indeed any detachment type).

Which is a pretty big flaw in your logic.

That's assuming that all Supplements, both 6th and 7th Ed, are written in exactly the same way, with the same wording on how things are taken.

You'll find that they are not. And that assumption is a pretty big logical flaw.

 FlingitNow wrote:
then you can't take a CAD of any 6th Ed supplement (or indeed any detachment type).

With grendel's logic, how is this so?
The wording is still different in the 6th edition supplements compared to the 7th edition ones.

 grendel083 wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 grendel083 wrote:
So where else is permission granted?

True the word must is not used. So where else does it say you can?

As far as I can see, permission has only been granted for models taken from a Detachment or Formation from the Supplement. No where else.

If you have found a rule granting permission for them to be taken in other situations, then please quote it.

I think you miss understood me. I'm not saying there is definitive permission (or not) in the BrB to take a Supplement CAD, just stating if you believe there isn't (as you're claiming with no CoF CAD) then you can't take a CAD of any 6th Ed supplement (or indeed any detachment type).

Which is a pretty big flaw in your logic.

That's assuming that all Supplements, both 6th and 7th Ed, are written in exactly the same way, with the same wording on how things are taken.

You'll find that they are not. And that assumption is a pretty big logical flaw.

So what wording allows you take a CAD of Iyanden? Why can't you answer that question given your claim here?

 FlingitNow wrote:
So what wording allows you take a CAD of Iyanden? Why can't you answer that question given your claim here?

Have you checked the Iyanden Supplement yourself?

It will take a while to dig out out my copy, But I seem to remeber words to the effect of "Lyanden Army (Changed to Detachment via FAQ) chosen from Codex: Eldar with the additional rules in this volume"

You select detchments as you would any other force, with the addional restrictions listed in the Supplement.

Which is a different method to that laid out in the 7th ed supplements.

Nope it doesn't say that. But wording from any supplement that allows you take a CAD would be fine.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Nope it doesn't say that. But wording from any supplement that allows you take a CAD would be fine.

Here you go:

"A Sentinels of Terra detachment is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Space Marines, and uses the Chapter Tactics (Imperial Fists) special rule. It also has a series of supplemental rules that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Space marines. Note that you can only use the options from one codex supplement when choosing a detachment"

I trust that you're happy with a Codex: Space Marines using a CAD?
Pretty much the same wording I remember from the Iyadan book, think it was in the missions section. They tend to dictate how armies should be fielded.

The Clan Raukaan one states the same as Sentinels of Terra, for what it's worth.

Yeah my error that clear wording is not present in Iyanden or FE or CS.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Then if we apply wording to all 6th Ed Supplements then I'm happy no CoF CADs.

How did this thread suddenly started to be about Iyanden?
Whether or not you can, or cannot, take a Combined Arms Detachment of Iyanden has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that a Combined Arms Detachment of Space Wolves has no access to Relics of the Great Wolf.

Oh, to answer the question:
-A Farsight Enclaves army is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire.
-Later in this section you will find the Combined Arms Detachment and the Allied Detachment. Both of these can be used with any army.

A Farsight Enclave-supplement gives you additional rules for your Combined Arms Detachment.
The new supplements give you additional Detachments that have their own rules.

Hmmmm.... I am pretty sure this was all covered somewhere earlier in the thread. Oh yeah, here it is:

coredump wrote:
The Wolf Lord in the SW codex has permission to take a Relic of the Fang as an upgrade option. This holds true if it is part of a CAD, or Allied detachment, or Wolves Unleashed detachment. As a member of one of those detachments, however, (and some others) it does *not* have permission to take a relic of the Great Wolf.

If that same Wolf Lord is taken as part of a formation from the CoF supplement, or as part of the CotGW detachment, it gets a new special rule that *does* give it permission to take a relic of the Great Wolf. But it only has this premission while a unit in one of those formations or detechments.

So sure... you can take a CAD from the Fenris book.... it just doesn't get anything different from the SW book. A CAD from the Fenris book doesn't have permission to take relics from the Fenris book. *ONLY* formations and detachments from the Fenris book are given that permission.




Automatically Appended Next Post:



Or, to put it another way, lets say you show up with a list, and you tell me it is a CAD from the Fenris book.

I say "no problem"

Then you tell me it has a Relic from the Fenris book.

I say "Please show me the rule that let your Character purchase a relic from the Fenris book"


Where would you find that rule??