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.

I don't agree the FSE Commander rule is a replacement rule for the Tau Codex commnader rule. I think its an extension that is presented to work with the original rule.


The Tau Codex allows one commander max, the greater good book says this

"This section contains new and updated rules for the Farsight Enclaves
subfaction from Codex: T’au Empire, including Stratagems, Relics, Warlord
Traits and Tactical Objectives."

And then you are allowed to take 2 FSE commanders.

1 FSE Commander uses up the restriction in the Tau Codex, and the Greater good book provides the exception that allows up to 2 FSE commanders.

Adding Shadowsun... is a third commander... breaks both rulesets in my mind.

Having Shadowsun and FSE commander
in the same detachment breaks the commander restriction in the Tau Codex.

So... 1 Shadowsun or 2 FSE commanders per detachment only.

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
I don't agree the FSE Commander rule is a replacement rule for the Tau Codex commnader rule. I think its an extension that is presented to work with the original rule.


The Tau Codex allows one commander max, the greater good book says this

"This section contains new and updated rules for the Farsight Enclaves
subfaction from Codex: T’au Empire, including Stratagems, Relics, Warlord
Traits and Tactical Objectives."

And then you are allowed to take 2 FSE commanders.

1 FSE Commander uses up the restriction in the Tau Codex, and the Greater good book provides the exception that allows up to 2 FSE commanders.

Adding Shadowsun... is a third commander... breaks both rulesets in my mind.

Having Shadowsun and FSE commander
in the same detachment breaks the commander restriction in the Tau Codex.

So... 1 Shadowsun or 2 FSE commanders per detachment only.

Except it doesn't provide any such exception. All it does is allow you to add 2 FSE COMMANDERS, it doesn't let you ignore the original rule, which the first FSE COMMANDER satisfies. That's how keywords works. So either the FSE rule is broken, or you can have a 3rd non FSE COMMANDER, it's one or the other.

This is a case of "implicit" permission. GW failed to give explicit permission to override the rule restricting a detachment to one Commander when allowing two Farsight Enclaves Commanders in a Farsight Enclaves detachment. Reading comprehension and logical deduction therefore dictates there is "implicit" permission to do so.

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
I don't agree the FSE Commander rule is a replacement rule for the Tau Codex commnader rule. I think its an extension that is presented to work with the original rule.


The Tau Codex allows one commander max, the greater good book says this

"This section contains new and updated rules for the Farsight Enclaves
subfaction from Codex: T’au Empire, including Stratagems, Relics, Warlord
Traits and Tactical Objectives."

And then you are allowed to take 2 FSE commanders.

1 FSE Commander uses up the restriction in the Tau Codex, and the Greater good book provides the exception that allows up to 2 FSE commanders.

Adding Shadowsun... is a third commander... breaks both rulesets in my mind.

Having Shadowsun and FSE commander
in the same detachment breaks the commander restriction in the Tau Codex.

So... 1 Shadowsun or 2 FSE commanders per detachment only.

Exactly this.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 alextroy wrote:
This is a case of "implicit" permission. GW failed to give explicit permission to override the rule restricting a detachment to one Commander when allowing two Farsight Enclaves Commanders in a Farsight Enclaves detachment. Reading comprehension and logical deduction therefore dictates there is "implicit" permission to do so.

And this.

 Sazzlefrats wrote:
I don't agree the FSE Commander rule is a replacement rule for the Tau Codex commnader rule. I think its an extension that is presented to work with the original rule.


The Tau Codex allows one commander max, the greater good book says this

"This section contains new and updated rules for the Farsight Enclaves
subfaction from Codex: T’au Empire, including Stratagems, Relics, Warlord
Traits and Tactical Objectives."

And then you are allowed to take 2 FSE commanders.

1 FSE Commander uses up the restriction in the Tau Codex, and the Greater good book provides the exception that allows up to 2 FSE commanders.

Adding Shadowsun... is a third commander... breaks both rulesets in my mind.

Having Shadowsun and FSE commander
in the same detachment breaks the commander restriction in the Tau Codex.

So... 1 Shadowsun or 2 FSE commanders per detachment only.

This does not follow logically - it claims that FSE Commander can count towards the Tau Codex limit but SS cannot.

If 1 FSE Commander is said to "use up the restriction in the Tau Codex," then SS in FSE surely also "use up the restriction in the Tau Codex."

Then, in a FSE detachment, it is legal to fill the first slot of Commander with SS, then you can take a FSE Commander as per "extension that is present to work with the [Tau Codex limitations], not just 1 SS or 2 FSEC.

The more logical reading is that a FSE detachment can have two Commanders if both are FSE Commanders.

TLDR: SS probably cannot be included in a FSE detachment without breaking rules.

Strongest inductive conclusion would be:

If you are playing FARSIGHT ENCLAVE subfaction, and if you are playing a matched play game with a battle forged army, you can include no more than two COMMANDERS per Detachment as long as both COMMANDERS have the FARSIGHT ENCLAVE keyword.

, since COMMANDER =! FARSIGHT ENCLAVE COMMANDER as per definition of adjacent keyword where you must match each keyword in order to be eligible.

Let: A = If you are playing a matched play game, then in a Battle-forged army, you can include no more than one COMMANDER in each Detachment
And B = If you are playing a matched play game with a Battle-forged army, you can include no more than two FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER units in each Detachment.

Case 1:

A and B: [if you are playing a matched play game, then in a battle forged army, you can include no more than one COMMANDER in each Detachment,] AND [if you are playing a matched play game with a battle forged army, you can include no more than two FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER units in each Detachment.]
Conclusion: If you are playing a matched play game, then you can include no more than one COMMANDER and no more than two FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER units in each Detachment.

TLDR: Matched play Tau list can contain one COMMANDER and two FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER per Detachment.
Assumption: Specific FARSIGHT ENCLAVES subfaction rules does not override general provisions set forth in Tau Codex

Fallacies: Hasty Generalization
The claim fails to take account the following:

Forces of the Enclave
This section contains new and updated rules for the Farsight Enclaves subfaction from Codex: T’au Empire, including Stratagems, Relics, Warlord Traits and Tactical Objectives.

Case 2:

A or B: [if you are playing a matched play game, then in a battle forged army, you can include no more than one COMMANDER in each Detachment,] OR [if you are playing a matched play game with a battle forged army, you can include no more than two FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER units in each Detachment.]

Conclusion: If you are playing a matched play game as SEPT =! FARSIGHT ENCLAVE, then you can include no more than one COMMANDER in each Detachment. If you are playing a matched play game as SEPT = FARSIGHT ENCLAVE, then you can include no more than two FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER units in each Detachment.

TLDR: Matched play non-FSE can contain one COMMANDER. Matched play FSE can contain two FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER.

Assumption: When playing as FARSIGHT ENCLAVES subfaction, specific FARSIGHT ENCLAVES subfaction rules apply exclusively and ignores the general provision set forth in Tau Codex.

 skchsan wrote:

If you are playing FARSIGHT ENCLAVE subfaction, and if you are playing a matched play game with a battle forged army, you can include no more than two COMMANDERS per Detachment as long as both COMMANDERS have the FARSIGHT ENCLAVE keyword.

Where are you getting this rule? Page 50 of Psychic Awakening: The Greater Good says

MATCHED PLAY RULE: COMMANDERS
If you are playing a matched play game with a Battle-forged army, you can include no more than two FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER units in each Detachment.

I just checked the PA:TGG FAQ, there has been no change to this rule, nor any change to the Codex: T'au Empire rule.

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

If you are playing FARSIGHT ENCLAVE subfaction, and if you are playing a matched play game with a battle forged army, you can include no more than two COMMANDERS per Detachment as long as both COMMANDERS have the FARSIGHT ENCLAVE keyword.

Where are you getting this rule? Page 50 of Psychic Awakening: The Greater Good says

MATCHED PLAY RULE: COMMANDERS
If you are playing a matched play game with a Battle-forged army, you can include no more than two FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER units in each Detachment.

I just checked the PA:TGG FAQ, there has been no change to this rule, nor any change to the Codex: T'au Empire rule.

Because there's a specific clause that explicitly states 'new and updated' rules apply when playing FARSIGHT ENCLAVE subfaction:

Your argument requires cherry picking of the subsection of that page with disregard to how to apply the rules.

RAW, FSE can only include FSE COMMANDERS, to maximum of 2.

No it doesn't. You've entirely changed what the rule says.

If you are playing FARSIGHT ENCLAVE subfaction, and if you are playing a matched play game with a battle forged army, you can include no more than two COMMANDERS per Detachment as long as both COMMANDERS have the FARSIGHT ENCLAVE keyword.

is not the same as

If you are playing a matched play game with a Battle-forged army, you can include no more than two FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER units in each Detachment.

The rule you have made up is nowhere to be found.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No it doesn't. You've entirely changed what the rule says.

If you are playing FARSIGHT ENCLAVE subfaction, and if you are playing a matched play game with a battle forged army, you can include no more than two COMMANDERS per Detachment as long as both COMMANDERS have the FARSIGHT ENCLAVE keyword.

is not the same as

If you are playing a matched play game with a
Battle-forged army, you can include no more than two FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER units in each Detachment.

 skchsan wrote:
TLDR: SS probably cannot be included in a FSE detachment without breaking rules.

Strongest inductive conclusion would be:

If you are playing FARSIGHT ENCLAVE subfaction, and if you are playing a matched play game with a battle forged army, you can include no more than two COMMANDERS per Detachment as long as both COMMANDERS have the FARSIGHT ENCLAVE keyword.

I don't see where I changed the rule? It specifically states it's a conjecture.

FORCES OF THE ENCLAVE is a rule addendum for playing FARSIGHT ENCLAVE subfaction, which follows it's specific MATCHED PLAY RULE.

You can't disregard the fact that it's a specific rule that overrides the general rule as provided in Tau Codex. It's written right there.

You've basically added clauses to the rule that don't exist. The rule is very clear as to what it does. It does what it says, and nothing more.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You've basically added clauses to the rule that don't exist. The rule is very clear as to what it does. It does what it says, and nothing more.

You're purposely choosing to disregard the instructions and cherry picking specific texts that support your claim.

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You've basically added clauses to the rule that don't exist. The rule is very clear as to what it does. It does what it says, and nothing more.

You're purposely choosing to disregard the instructions and cherry picking specific texts that support your claim.

How is following the rule to the letter cherry picking?

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
You've basically added clauses to the rule that don't exist. The rule is very clear as to what it does. It does what it says, and nothing more.

You're purposely choosing to disregard the instructions and cherry picking specific texts that support your claim.

How is following the rule to the letter cherry picking?

Strawman. We're not discussing the validity of your methodology. We're discussing specific omission of a particular supporting premises that is occurring in your logical argument.

No, you're adding rules where rules don't exist.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, you're adding rules where rules don't exist.

Circular reasoning. You have to provide something more that supports why the instructions on when to apply the MATCHED PLAY RULE for FSE should be ignored in your argument.

 skchsan wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
No, you're adding rules where rules don't exist.

Circular reasoning. You have to provide something more that supports why the instructions on when to apply the MATCHED PLAY RULE for FSE should be ignored in your argument.

I am not ignoring anything. The rule says what it does, and nothing more. You're adding inferences, I am following the rules.

I think this thread has run its course.