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 everyone, I am heavily leaning towards running a Farsight Enclave Tau army and was reading up on the rules when I stumbled across something I have a question about. Now we all know that the Farsight Enclaves have their own set of Signature Systems meaning that they cannot take the Signature Systems from Codex Tau, however when reading the rule it states:

"Any Characters in your army that may select Signature Systems may not select from those listed in Codex Tau Empire"

Now I have highlighted Characters for a reason because Crisis Suit Bodyguards in the Codex are listed as "Jet Pack Infantry" and according to how this is written it seems like the rule was meant for Characters from Codex: Farisght Enclaves and applied to characters only because of how it was written. Basically my question is this:

-Because that Crisis Suit Bodyguards are not Characters and therefore apparently not restricted by the rule, does that mean that they can take the Signature Systems from Codex: Tau Empire because they are not Characters?

*sigh* Looks legit to me, rules as worded.

I bet GW didn't realize they had non-characters which can take signature systems. Considering it's essentially relics in any other codex, and all the other supplements restrict your relics to the ones listed in that supplement rather than the basic army, I think the intention was you're not supposed to use stuff from Codex: Tau if you're utilizing a Farsight detachment. That's just how I'd play it though.

RaI is pretty obvious in this case and I think this is an example of something that needs to be FAQ'd and not exploited.

It is a good catch, and I have to wonder just how dangerous it would be for certain combinations of Signature Systems to be on the same unit.

I'm sorry but RAI is not obvious here. The only place you can do this is the bodyguard detachment. To me its clearly to allow you to run a farsight bomb with a farsight army. With out those systems its useless.

 thejughead wrote:
I'm sorry but RAI is not obvious here. The only place you can do this is the bodyguard detachment. To me its clearly to allow you to run a farsight bomb with a farsight army. With out those systems its useless.

I gotta second the jughead on this...clearly states characters. In other codex's I do not believe anyone but characters/IC's can take stuff from the relics/system lists.

Only Tau can have non-characters take "relics"/ sig systems.

And why did it take someone this long to find this !!!! I can run a decent mini bomb now w/ my Farsight army!

I find that doubtful:
The writers of the supplement where focused on creating an entirely unique Farsight team. While it would already be hard pressed to prove they intended for the 'command systems' to be accessible by a Farsight bomb to begin with, this makes it even more unlikely. The farsight bomb/star is a unique one-trick-pony tactics that the new Farsight team is not using in the slightest, so why would the designers of the supplement be taking it into consideration and not out-right told us they where doing so?

JinxDragon wrote:
I find that doubtful:
The writers of the supplement where focused on creating an entirely unique Farsight team. While it would already be hard pressed to prove they intended for the 'command systems' to be accessible by a Farsight bomb to begin with, this makes it even more unlikely. The farsight bomb/star is a unique one-trick-pony tactics that the new Farsight team is not using in the slightest, so why would the designers of the supplement be taking it into consideration and not out-right told us they where doing so?

Because it is Games Workshop?

Honestly no clue...would likely boil down to who/where you play and if they will allow it and if an FAQ would come out (unlikley)

Either way I just found out that at ETC's Crisis Suit Bodyguards are allowed to take the Signature Systems from Codex Tau. To me I see it being interpreted as that it is a rule meant for the Characters ONLY that you take in the Farsight Enclave. Not trying to be "that guy" but I am going for a heavy Crisis Suit themed army and this helps out a lot with that.

Rai is perfectly clear, unless you're being wilfully ignorant. Why would bodyguards be able to take Signature systems but not Shas'Os? In Tau fluff and in the rules, it makes no sense.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Rai is perfectly clear, unless you're being wilfully ignorant. Why would bodyguards be able to take Signature systems but not Shas'Os? In Tau fluff and in the rules, it makes no sense.

Commanders are characters AFAIK.

Edit: never mind, got what you're saying.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Rai is perfectly clear, unless you're being wilfully ignorant. Why would bodyguards be able to take Signature systems but not Shas'Os? In Tau fluff and in the rules, it makes no sense.

No. RAI is never clear, because you cannot read the minds of the writers. You can, however, read the rules they have written.

You could make an argument that it makes no sense that characters can't take TE signature systems while non-characters can, but you can just as easily argue that it makes sense that the Farsight bomb can function the same way in the FE as in the TE codex. Especially since certain FE special characters have TE signature systems. As it stands, the rules confirm the latter interpretation, but not the former.

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Rai is perfectly clear, unless you're being wilfully ignorant. Why would bodyguards be able to take Signature systems but not Shas'Os? In Tau fluff and in the rules, it makes no sense.

I think you mean reasonable clear. As in any one should reasonable come to the conclusion its an oversight. Perfectly clear would mean there is no other possible way it could go down, and while I doubt it was intended to allow the bodyguards access to the equipment they did opt to use 'characters' where they could have said 'models' so the possibility, no matter how remote, exists this was intentional.

I thought the signature systems otherwise inaccessible to Farsight Enclave could be found on various members of The Eight, meaning you'd run the special characters unique to that supplement if you wanted to "Farsight Bomb."

 SRSFACE wrote:
I thought the signature systems otherwise inaccessible to Farsight Enclave could be found on various members of The Eight, meaning you'd run the special characters unique to that supplement if you wanted to "Farsight Bomb."

And they all become characters and gain IC for no additional cost so they are worth it.

 DJGietzen wrote:

 liquidjoshi wrote:
Rai is perfectly clear, unless you're being wilfully ignorant. Why would bodyguards be able to take Signature systems but not Shas'Os? In Tau fluff and in the rules, it makes no sense.

I think you mean reasonable clear. As in any one should reasonable come to the conclusion its an oversight. Perfectly clear would mean there is no other possible way it could go down, and while I doubt it was intended to allow the bodyguards access to the equipment they did opt to use 'characters' where they could have said 'models' so the possibility, no matter how remote, exists this was intentional.

Right. Forgot this was YMDC, where splitting hairs is mandatory . So yes, reasonably clear. I don't think it's too hard a jump to make to see it's (pretty likely) an oversight.

Aeodian wrote:

Only Tau can have non-characters take "relics"/ sig systems.

And why did it take someone this long to find this !!!! I can run a decent mini bomb now w/ my Farsight army!

Tyranids as well via Tervigons and Trygon Primes.

I play Farsight Enclave and I look at this as an oversight. In my opinion RAI is that no one but a couple of The Eight can take the signature systems from C:TE.

100% if someone tried this with me or any of my friends they would instantly be branded as "that guy". Doesn't matter if it's RAW or not.

 LUTNIT wrote:
I play Farsight Enclave and I look at this as an oversight. In my opinion RAI is that no one but a couple of The Eight can take the signature systems from C:TE.

100% if someone tried this with me or any of my friends they would instantly be branded as "that guy". Doesn't matter if it's RAW or not.

So your banning someone for following the rules and its his fault that he is running an army using them how they are written down? Sorry that bull, its not his fault that GW didn't make it clear, and for all you know they could have intended it for just Characters.

So do you play that models without eyes can not draw line of sight?

 gmaleron wrote:
So your banning someone for following the rules and its his fault that he is running an army using them how they are written down? Sorry that bull, its not his fault that GW didn't make it clear, and for all you know they could have intended it for just Characters.

Who said I was banning anyone? "That Guy" is the guy that people make up excuses not to play again; they don't ban him from their presence.
By your logic playing everything as RAW the game is really messed up. As said above models without eyes cannot shoot. By RAW a transport that explodes can have the units that come out assault the next turn but if it's wrecked they can't. If you want to turn off your brain and play everything RAW things go to hell pretty quick. No one can ever overwatch because overwatch allows a "shooting attack" which is not a defined action in the rule book. etc. etc. etc.
Are you also the type of person who was putting Dread Knights into Storm Ravens before it was FAQ'ed?

 LUTNIT wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
So your banning someone for following the rules and its his fault that he is running an army using them how they are written down? Sorry that bull, its not his fault that GW didn't make it clear, and for all you know they could have intended it for just Characters.

Who said I was banning anyone? "That Guy" is the guy that people make up excuses not to play again; they don't ban him from their presence.
By your logic playing everything as RAW the game is really messed up. As said above models without eyes cannot shoot. By RAW a transport that explodes can have the units that come out assault the next turn but if it's wrecked they can't. If you want to turn off your brain and play everything RAW things go to hell pretty quick. No one can ever overwatch because overwatch allows a "shooting attack" which is not a defined action in the rule book. etc. etc. etc.
Are you also the type of person who was putting Dread Knights into Storm Ravens before it was FAQ'ed?

Bro there is a BIG difference between all those examples and what is written here, especially the Dreadknight into a Storm Raven, talk about exaggeration, use something that will give you a legitimate argument. all I am saying is that you cant blame a player for using a rule that was not written down clearly in the first place or can be interpreted in a different way then you want. Don't accuse me of "turning off my brain" because I found something that is ACTUALLY debatable and according to RAW says I can do. If everyone did RAI then a good chunk of the current rules don't make sense, its tit for tat.

And that's fine if you play in a crowd like that, however I have never been "that guy" or a WAC kind of player, I just found a way to get more Crisis Suits on the field and because the rules say that I can (because of how they are written) then I am going to do it. Hell the list I want to run isn't even as competitive as I can make it. Are you the type of person who sees Screamstar or Tri Riptide and accuses them of Cheese or Power Gaming and refuses to play them? See I can be as much of a jerk if I want to be.

This doesn't allow one to field more Crisis Suits then prior to this loophole being discovered, as bodyguards have always been available to the Farsight Enclave.
Had they been restricted so one could not field them as additional crisis suits, this post wouldn't exist because it is specifically about using a Farsight Enclave Army and taking Tau Empire Signature Systems on Bodyguards.

All this loophole does is allows one to get around a restriction that exists for the sole purpose of forcing Farsight Enclave Armies to use their own unique Signature Systems. It is all based over the use of a single word within the rules, something which could of been done as an oversight as every other model that has access to Signature Systems are characters. While it can be debated what the writers might of intended, they where very obscure with how they went about doing so. The fact it took months after release for this loophole to be discovered just highlights the fact that maybe the interpretation that it was 'always intended' is incorrect. It is far more likely that an army wide restriction, with no exception for bodyguards being mentioned, was not meant to be circumvented in such a way.

Now we have a group stating they will exploit this loophole, and they seem surprised and even offended that others will label them as 'that ******* guys' for it?

It is RAW and the rules do indeed say you can do it. I just think most reasonable people would see it as an oversight and I personally do.

To think that every single loop hole or oversight on GW's part was intentional is pretty insane. The 40k ruleset is poorly written and needs constant FAQ's and erratas that GW no longer seems to be putting out.

And yes, if someone showed up with a screamerstar/triptide/farsight bomb/waveserpent spam/seerstar/etc. and thought nothing of it then yes, they would be branded as "that guy". If they did it to try it out or where new and built a net list without knowing much about the game and we can talk some reason into them then they are obviously not "that guy".

I also don't see how the deadknight in a stormraven is an exaggeration and gives me no legit argument. Until it was FAQ'ed it was indeed a loop hole that many tried to argue was intentional. The only difference is that it has been FAQ'ed while this has not (and I doubt it will be with GW's current rate of releasing FAQ's). If you can say you would bet your life that GW left this loop hole in on purpose you are far braver than I.

I always try to use the legal principle of the reasonable person standard when trying to come up with RaI whenever an unclear or potentially unintended wording clouds RaW.

Can non-characters in a Farsight Enclave army list take Tau Empire only "relics"? RaW... sure looks like it.

Now let me apply the reasonable person standard to RaI. We know the following...

1. Characters may only select from the Farsight Enclaves "relics".
2. In other supplement examples, modelsfrom the respective armies may only choose "relics" from their supplements.
3. GW doesn't appear to employcopy editors to examine the language and consistency of their rules, making errors more frequent than they should be.

I believe that a reasonable person would look at the above and say "I reasonably expect that GW intended for the Farsight Enclaves relics to replace the Tau Empire relics. I furthermore reasonably believe that the reference to characters only was an oversight and that non characters should also have been included in the restriction."

Now, I might be wrong and I might be right. Ultimately, only the rules writers know for sure. But it sure seems reasonable to me that the Farsight Enclaves book was intended to work like all the other supplements.

 LUTNIT wrote:


I also don't see how the deadknight in a stormraven is an exaggeration and gives me no legit argument. Until it was FAQ'ed it was indeed a loop hole that many tried to argue was intentional. The only difference is that it has been FAQ'ed while this has not (and I doubt it will be with GW's current rate of releasing FAQ's). If you can say you would bet your life that GW left this loop hole in on purpose you are far braver than I.

Never said that at all, only saying that because of how it is written it clearly shows that it can be interpreted that way. And please show me where one person has EVER tried to put a Dreadknight into a Storm Raven, sorry bro but that is a lot different then this.

 gmaleron wrote:

 LUTNIT wrote:


I also don't see how the deadknight in a stormraven is an exaggeration and gives me no legit argument. Until it was FAQ'ed it was indeed a loop hole that many tried to argue was intentional. The only difference is that it has been FAQ'ed while this has not (and I doubt it will be with GW's current rate of releasing FAQ's). If you can say you would bet your life that GW left this loop hole in on purpose you are far braver than I.

Never said that at all, only saying that because of how it is written it clearly shows that it can be interpreted that way. And please show me where one person has EVER tried to put a Dreadknight into a Storm Raven, sorry bro but that is a lot different then this.

It's no different. Both are cases of loopholes being exploited. It's pretty clear even OP (Aka, you) know that this wasn't intended - otherwise, the thread wouldn't be titled "Farsight Enclaves Loophole."

It was fairly clear from the word go that neither was intended.

 liquidjoshi wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:

 LUTNIT wrote:


I also don't see how the deadknight in a stormraven is an exaggeration and gives me no legit argument. Until it was FAQ'ed it was indeed a loop hole that many tried to argue was intentional. The only difference is that it has been FAQ'ed while this has not (and I doubt it will be with GW's current rate of releasing FAQ's). If you can say you would bet your life that GW left this loop hole in on purpose you are far braver than I.

Never said that at all, only saying that because of how it is written it clearly shows that it can be interpreted that way. And please show me where one person has EVER tried to put a Dreadknight into a Storm Raven, sorry bro but that is a lot different then this.

It's no different. Both are cases of loopholes being exploited. It's pretty clear even OP (Aka, you) know that this wasn't intended - otherwise, the thread wouldn't be titled "Farsight Enclaves Loophole."

It was fairly clear from the word go that neither was intended.

And you have a direct line to Jervis? How do you know that the design team did not intend for an Enclave player to use a traditional bomb tactic in a supplement that bears his name. Label me WACC or that Guy. Using this is not OP. None of the Commander team can be taken. So you can only add in Farsight and another HQ. Far from busted. If you want busted try Ovesa Star, completely violates the rules in my opinion yet accepted.

YMDC is about RAW...Tournaments are about RAW...Casual and Campaigns are about RAI.

I don't see this as a problem the rule looks quite clear.

Given that Commander Farsight doesn't allow the crisis bodyguard team from the main 'dex to be selected how does this create an OP Farsight bomb ?

Can anyone explain to me how anyone would ever think you can put a Dreadknight in a Stormraven ? I am at a loss.

The supplement does not force a player to take the eight but simply gives it as an alternative option, this is even highlighted in the below errata:

https://www.games-workshop.com/MEDIA_CustomProductCatalog/m3520198a_Farsight_Enclaves_v1.0_OCTOBER13.pdf