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.

Hello DakkaDakka community, My question for you is

"Are alterations and additions to rules from a codex Supplement legal in competitive play?"

The reason I ask is I'm entered in an Escalation League, and intend to use a Farsight Enclave List in the upcoming tier.

Your theories and opinions would be appreciated.

This thread will be shared with the event organizer.

Only your Tournament Organiser can answer that.

Personally I think they should be included. But you'll find no rule stating "yes you can use this in a league".

Edit: Neither of the poll options are correct. Really it should read "do you think they should..."

Yup, they'll be legal in any event that chooses to include them, and not legal in any that choose not to do so.


There is no single, worldwide set of tournament rules to go by here.

Generally speaking though, most TO's from tradition will accept them do to the fact they are written by GW.

As stated though, there is no one universal rule set for organized play.

The last time we had 'add on' codexes they were accepted as much as any other codex.

The fact that this time around they are marketed as supplements rather than as codexes may make a difference, though. I can easily see tournaments choosing not to allow them on the basis of then making the game too confusing.

Absolutely. It's a GW published rules supplement. It's legal.

So is Apocalypse. That's not legal for normal 40k tournaments.

Why isn't there an eye-rolling orkmoticon?

True, but I always thought of Apocalypse as an exception, like a specialist game. (You can't use Necromunda rules in 40k either.)

Technically, I suppose it isn't listed in the specialist games section, but I don't think there is any legitimate reason for banning a codex supplement from tournaments. (With one caveat: around here, we require a codex to be out for a minimum amount of time before it is tournament legal.) Banning it simply because it is a codex supplement smacks of bias, at least to me.

It's entirely possible, of course, that I'm just way off base, and I'm the one with the weird opinion.

RAW they are part of the game just like any codex.

However, tournaments often use various house rules which may, among other things, include banning supplements. The only way to know for sure is to ask the person running the specific event you are interested in. Polling a random forum or checking the rulebook won't help you since a potential supplement ban would be entirely based on the TO's personal opinion and nothing else.

 Jimsolo wrote:
Absolutely. It's a GW published rules supplement. It's legal.

That doesn't stop TOs from imposing "no FW" house rules, banning double FOC in 2000 point games, etc. Tournaments are full of house rules that directly contradict how GW says the standard game should be played, banning supplements wouldn't be surprising at all.

Hello again DakkaDakka community, My question for you this time is

"Are codex supplements to be considered a separate codex?"

The reason I ask is the Escalation League I'm entered in has a house rule that we must use the same codex start to finish.

Your theories and opinions would be appreciated.

Again this thread will be shared with the event organizer.

No, they're the same codex with permission to ally with itself.

edit: As in, Farsight Enclave is the same as Codex: Tau, Black Legion is the same as Codex: Chaos Space Marines, etc.

...Awaiting 240,000 pages of "why FW should be included in 40k tourneys since supplements can" ...

I think you would be, I think the TO is just saying you cant swap your main army (like swapping Tau for Daemons for example), since you are intending to use the Tau codex from start to finish I think you would be allowed too.

Kaufman37 wrote:
Hello again DakkaDakka community, My question for you this time is

"Are codex supplements to be considered a separate codex?"

The reason I ask is the Escalation League I'm entered in has a house rule that we must use the same codex start to finish.

Your theories and opinions would be appreciated.

Again this thread will be shared with the event organizer.

I think the problem with this question is that it isn't nuanced enough to reflect the way in which material is published in 6th Ed.

The first question that needs to be addressed is are allies in or house-ruled out? Assuming they're in then perhaps the house rule should be "you must choose your primary detachment from the same army list from start to finish" (if the organisers intend the restriction to be applied in the most strictest definition possible, maybe they don't and it should be..... "any army list that uses the same Codex as it's base" - may require additional commentary if Imperial Armour is allowed).

Followed by "army lists are allowed if they are from the following sources:"
Codices (yes, obviously)
Codex Supplements? (yes/no)
Imperial Armour? (yes/no)
etc (?)

IMO competitive 40k is kind of silly anyway. 40k is written with the narrative campaign in mind rather than balance and the ability to compete in mind. IMHO supplements should NOT be allowed in competitive play because they throw the balance of the game off THAT MUCH more.

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they're the same codex with permission to ally with itself.

Actually I don't believe that Iyanden can ally with Eldar.

 Ghaz wrote:

rigeld2 wrote:
No, they're the same codex with permission to ally with itself.

Actually I don't believe that Iyanden can ally with Eldar.

Is there a reason you only quoted half my post?

Because that's the only part that was not entirely correct?

 Ghaz wrote:
Because that's the only part that was not entirely correct?

Where in the thread was the Eldar codex mentioned?
The OP mentioned the Farsight codex specifically. Why would I even address Eldar?
Heck, that out of context quote is still correct - Eldar not being able to ally with Iyanden doesn't disprove my statement at all.

Keep trolling though - its cool.

Touchy today, aren't we? Its not trolling. Your statement could easily be taken as meaning that any supplement could ally with its parent codex, regardless of what the topic of the thread is. With regards to Iyanden that is not the case.

Ahhh but as such the new marine codex states each chapter tactic which appears to be the nee supplement way of things is a unique army. And can ally with other chapter tactics so I would say if your to states same codex all the way through if you supplement I would guess they mean supplement if you chapter tactic the same so on so forth