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.
2015/04/14 05:56:12
Subject: Re:Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
GargoyleKing wrote: Although, this doesn't mean that you need a whole new CAD to use them. Only the free slots in your Primary CAD. Thus, you can essentially mix and match your army however you want with the rules as they are written. Go ahead and bring your Crisis Suits as troops in your Tau Empire army and still run three riptides if you must. It'll still be battleforged.
This is incorrect, unless you also wish to not be able to take Crisis Suits as Elites choices, be required to take the Bonding Knife Ritual and may not select signature systems from Codex: Tau Empire.
In which case you've taken a Farsight Enclaves detachment anyway.
2015/04/14 07:34:31
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
So no, you cannot take an allied detachment of Farsight Enclaves to your Tau Empire Combined Arms Detachment. Although, this doesn't mean that you need a whole new CAD to use them. Only the free slots in your Primary CAD. Thus, you can essentially mix and match your army however you want with the rules as they are written. Go ahead and bring your Crisis Suits as troops in your Tau Empire army and still run three riptides if you must. It'll still be battleforged.
Unfortunately that is not how it works. The FE rules are triggered by a Farsight Enclaves Detachment. So if your CAD is a FE detachment then all of the FE rules apply to the whole detachment, if not then none of them do. So whilst FE & TE units have the same faction so can be freely used within a CAD, the issue you have is that there are essentially no FE units just a list of rules that effect a FE detachment. Hence why the FAQ changed all rules from "army" to "detachment".
You know this argument is kind of redundant in that the min force org for tau is 1HQ, 2 troops, you would have to take 2 of those to take FE detachment, and Empire detachment. Which is affectively the same thing as the 1hq 1 troops requirement of the allied detachment, which you're likely taking 2 troops of anyways..
10k+ Tau, Ke'lshan 10k Dark Eldar Kabal of the Flayed skull 1k Scions
2015/04/14 10:20:28
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
NauticalKendall wrote: You know this argument is kind of redundant in that the min force org for tau is 1HQ, 2 troops, you would have to take 2 of those to take FE detachment, and Empire detachment. Which is affectively the same thing as the 1hq 1 troops requirement of the allied detachment, which you're likely taking 2 troops of anyways..
Sorry what? How us taking 2 HQs and 4 Troops the same as 2 HQs and 3 Troops? It also changes what you can take as optionals (4 HQs rather than 3, 12 Troops compared to 8, 6 Elites, FA & HS instead of 4).
This is incorrect, unless you also wish to not be able to take Crisis Suits as Elites choices, be required to take the Bonding Knife Ritual and may not select signature systems from Codex: Tau Empire.
In which case you've taken a Farsight Enclaves detachment anyway.
That actually does raise a question for me that I haven't considered in 7e, what specifically determines if you have a Farsight Enclaves detachment, what is the criteria?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/14 10:30:42
2015/04/14 10:47:20
Subject: Re:Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
This is incorrect, unless you also wish to not be able to take Crisis Suits as Elites choices, be required to take the Bonding Knife Ritual and may not select signature systems from Codex: Tau Empire.
In which case you've taken a Farsight Enclaves detachment anyway.
That actually does raise a question for me that I haven't considered in 7e, what specifically determines if you have a Farsight Enclaves detachment, what is the criteria?
Effectively we are not told how to nominate a Detachment as a FE Detachment. But we know that it must be made up of units with Faction: Tau Empire and we know that the FE rules apply to the entire detachment. Thus any detachment open to TE can be nominated a FE detachment as long as it follows the FE rules.
So for instance say you want to make a FBSC into a FE FBSC. Well all the units must take bonding, your Riptide can take the ECPA, no one can take TE signature systems and Crisis suits are troops. All good so far, however you must include a unit of 3 Crisis suits as troops, which is impossible to do so you cannot field a legal FE FBSC.
RAW I am correct. Because no matter the detachment, FE is a supplement of the TE codex. Thus, units from it can be included in a TE detachment. I would say that any units that come from the supplement, must still follow any restrictions. But they also may take advantage of all of the benefits of the publication they came from.
In battlescribe, I generally build it as a second allied detachment s because I want to rock a commander and squad anyways, but I see nothing that limits me from only taking one or the other.
This, of course still leaves the elites slot as it was. It's still a TE detachment. Just with units from it's suppliment.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/14 11:14:18
Squirrels are Evil
2015/04/14 10:53:44
Subject: Re:Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
Nilok wrote: That actually does raise a question for me that I haven't considered in 7e, what specifically determines if you have a Farsight Enclaves detachment, what is the criteria?
It's not explicitly defined, though we can draw the inference that it is a Tau Empire-factioned Combined Arms Detachment or other available detachment that fulfils the criteria given in Farsight Enclaves.
The point I was making in the post you quoted was that if you attempt to mix and match Farsight Enclaves and Tau Empire in a single detachment you run into the issue of either breaking the Farsight Enclave rules/requirements or ending up with it just being a Farsight Enclaves detachment by being forced to adhere to them.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
GargoyleKing wrote: RAW I am correct. Because no matter the detachment, FE is a supplement of the TE codex. Thus, units from it can be included in a TE detachment. I would say that any units that can, must still purchase follow any restrictions. But they also may take advantage of all of the benefits of the publication they came from.
In battlescribe, I generally build it as a second allied detachment s because I want to rock a commander and squad anyways, but I see nothing that limits me from only taking one or the other.
This, of course still leaves the elites slot as it was. It's still a TE detachment. Just with units from it's suppliment.
You're not correct.
Want to take a Codex: Tau Empire XV8 Crisis Team in your Tau Empire/Farsight Enclaves detachment? Okay, it's an Elites choice as per Codex: Tau Empire. Oh wait, drat, XV8 Crisis Teams are taken as Troops instead of Elites in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment.
Don't want to take any XV8 Crisis Teams in your Tau Empire/Farsight Enclaves Detachment? Oh damn, you must take at least one unit of three in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment.
Want to take Fire Warriors to fill out the rest of your troops? Okay, but wait, if it's also a Farsight Enclaves Detachment they must take the Bonding Knife Ritual.
Want to take Aun'Va and Commander Shadowsun in your Tau Empire/Farsight Enclaves Detachment? Oh wait, you're not allowed to in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment.
You're unable to mix and match because you either break the Farsight Enclaves rules or you're required to follow them and it just becomes a detachment chosen using the Farsight Enclaves rules.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/14 11:01:20
2015/04/14 11:07:54
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
GargoyleKing wrote: RAW I am correct. Because no matter the detachment, FE is a supplement of the TE codex. Thus, units from it can be included in a TE detachment. I would say that any units that can, must still purchase follow any restrictions. But they also may take advantage of all of the benefits of the publication they came from.
In battlescribe, I generally build it as a second allied detachment s because I want to rock a commander and squad anyways, but I see nothing that limits me from only taking one or the other.
This, of course still leaves the elites slot as it was. It's still a TE detachment. Just with units from it's suppliment.
RaW you are not correct due to the wording in FE. To get ANYTHING from there you need to have a FE detachment, there are no FE Units only TE Units. The FE Supplement simply applies rules to a detachment. If you want ANY of those rules they all apply to the entire detachment.
FE never anticipated 7th Edition. None of the 6th Ed publications did. But 7th made specific allowances for them in the rule I mentioned above. All pre-7th ed supplements are part of their codex's faction, and their units can be included together. RAW...
Squirrels are Evil
2015/04/14 11:35:58
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
GargoyleKing wrote: FE never anticipated 7th Edition. None of the 6th Ed publications did. But 7th made specific allowances for them in the rule I mentioned above. All pre-7th ed supplements are part of their codex's faction, and their units can be included together. RAW...
So what happens when you select an XV8 Crisis Team as an Elites choice from Codex: Tau Empire, when Farsight Enclaves says XV8 teams are a Troops choices instead of Elites?
What happens when you don't want to take any XV8 Crisis Teams but Farsight Enclaves says you must include at least one made up of three members?
You either follow the Farsight Enclaves rules and it therefore becomes a Farsight Enclaves Detachment or you're simply breaking the rules and not following RAW.
2015/04/14 11:48:05
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
GargoyleKing wrote: FE never anticipated 7th Edition. None of the 6th Ed publications did. But 7th made specific allowances for them in the rule I mentioned above. All pre-7th ed supplements are part of their codex's faction, and their units can be included together. RAW...
Do you care to add a quote for that bolded bit?
Because, by that logic, since I run Clan Raukaan (released in 6th), I can: run an Iron Hands detachment from Codex: Space Marines, take Dreads as Heavy & Elites without a Techmarine (because Clan Raukaan says I can), and take 2 Techmarines per HQ (because the supplement says I can). Additionally, I can take the Gifts of the Gorgon, again because my supplement says I can.
Although it also tells me it has to be in a Clan Raukaan detachment to do any of those things (similar to what FE says, I imagine).
I'm aware that my example is not the same as the topic, but I'm trying to give a similar example since I do not have the FE or TE books right now.
Not many codices were written for 7th, but without an FAQ or some explicit permission to actually take a supplement and its codex in the same detachment, you cannot do it.
As far as I know, no codex or supplement, allows you to take them in the same detachment as another codex/supplement. Only alongside it.
If I sound like I'm being a condescending butthole, I'm not. Read my reply as neutrally as possible, please and thank you.
2015/04/14 11:48:26
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
This is an incredibly misunderstood topic. GW attempted to add clarity by mentioning that codex overrides rulebook and advanced rules override basic rules, but since people do not understand what this actually means, by them putting that in the rules it has actually led to more confusion rather than less.
The first thing you have to understand is how rules for a game are written at their core.
When you start writing rules for a game, you have a completely blank slate...nothing in that game world exists at all. So in order for anything to exist or do anything in your game world, you have to give it permission to do so. For example, models don't move on their own, so you have to create rules that tell players exactly when and how they can move their models. This is why people typically call rules a 'permissive' thing, because without permission to do something within the game you cannot do it. Or otherwise known as rule #1:
1) Rules are ultimately permissive. If the rules don't give you permission to do something, you can't do it.
However, that's not the end of the story, because you'll also notice in the rules a whole lot of 'restrictions', where the rules tell you what you CAN'T do within those permissive actions the rules allow you to do. Really, a more accurate way to describe game rules would be to say that they are 'permissive with restrictions'.
By their very nature, restrictions must override permissions, or else game rules do not function. For example, if you have a permission that says: 'models in the movement phase can move 6 inches', then this is a permission that generally allows models to move in the movement phase. However later if I later add a restriction that says: 'models that have gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase', by its very nature, this restriction overrides the permission and tells you that a model which has gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase despite the general permission that allows models to move 6" in the movement phase. Or to simply this into rule #2:
2) Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict.
So with those 2 core rules in place, let's look at the concept of specific vs. general. Again, this concept is core to the idea of how rules HAVE to work in order for anything to make sense. Games Workshop doesn't need to actually mention this fact in their rules, as it is a basic necessity for game rules, but they did anyway. But what does it all mean?
3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.
Its very simple, when two rules contradict each other, the one that is more specific must take precedence. When GW talks about advanced rules taking precedence over basic rules, this simply means something like: the basic rules for movement say that models move 6" in the movement phase. But then in the advanced rules they'll say stuff like: 'models using a jump pack in the movement phase move 12 inches'.
If the advanced rules didn't take precedence over the basic rules, then all models would move 6 inches in the movement phase, as advanced rules would be unable to override this basic tenant no matter what. In other words, 'advanced' really just means 'specific', while 'basic' really just means 'general'.
However, this does not mean that advanced rules always override basic rules, as restrictions still take precedence over permissions. For example, an advanced rule may say: 'models with jump packs are able to move 12" in the movement phase', but if a model has gone to ground, then the basic rules restriction against a model being able to move in the movement phase still overrides the advanced rules permission that the model can move 12" in the movement phase.
It is also even possible for a 'basic' rule to be specific enough to override an 'advanced' rule. For example, an advanced rule may say that jump pack models can move 12" in the movement phase, but if there happened to be a 'basic' rule which actually spelled out that jump pack models can only move 6" when moving into difficult terrain (just an imaginary example here), then that 'basic' rule would still take precedence over the 'advanced' rule because it was specific enough to actually mention that it applies to jump pack models.
Finally, when GW says that codexes take precedence over the rulebook, again this is a case of generally speaking, the codexes being more 'advanced' than the advanced rules in the rulebook. Meaning, if the advanced rules in the rulebook say that Jump Pack models move 12" in the movement phase but a codex says that a special unit moves like a Jump Pack model, but up to 18", then clearly the codex rule has to take precedence over the rulebook for the whole thing to work.
But just as before, restrictions still override permissions (even if the restriction is in the rulebook and the permission is in a codex) and it is possible for rules in the rulebook to be more specific than even a codex and therefore take precedence over the codex rules.
So please, please, please do not parrot the terms: 'codex > rulebook' and 'advanced > basic' without understanding that these concepts are not absolute. They ONLY apply when the rules between two sources actually contradict, not when one is a permission and the other is a restriction.
If I sound like I'm being a condescending butthole, I'm not. Read my reply as neutrally as possible, please and thank you.
2015/04/14 12:26:05
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
This is an incredibly misunderstood topic. GW attempted to add clarity by mentioning that codex overrides rulebook and advanced rules override basic rules, but since people do not understand what this actually means, by them putting that in the rules it has actually led to more confusion rather than less.
The first thing you have to understand is how rules for a game are written at their core.
When you start writing rules for a game, you have a completely blank slate...nothing in that game world exists at all. So in order for anything to exist or do anything in your game world, you have to give it permission to do so. For example, models don't move on their own, so you have to create rules that tell players exactly when and how they can move their models. This is why people typically call rules a 'permissive' thing, because without permission to do something within the game you cannot do it. Or otherwise known as rule #1:
1) Rules are ultimately permissive. If the rules don't give you permission to do something, you can't do it.
However, that's not the end of the story, because you'll also notice in the rules a whole lot of 'restrictions', where the rules tell you what you CAN'T do within those permissive actions the rules allow you to do. Really, a more accurate way to describe game rules would be to say that they are 'permissive with restrictions'.
By their very nature, restrictions must override permissions, or else game rules do not function. For example, if you have a permission that says: 'models in the movement phase can move 6 inches', then this is a permission that generally allows models to move in the movement phase. However later if I later add a restriction that says: 'models that have gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase', by its very nature, this restriction overrides the permission and tells you that a model which has gone to ground cannot move in the movement phase despite the general permission that allows models to move 6" in the movement phase. Or to simply this into rule #2:
2) Restrictions always override permissions, where the two conflict.
So with those 2 core rules in place, let's look at the concept of specific vs. general. Again, this concept is core to the idea of how rules HAVE to work in order for anything to make sense. Games Workshop doesn't need to actually mention this fact in their rules, as it is a basic necessity for game rules, but they did anyway. But what does it all mean?
3) Specific overrides general, although remembering that restrictions still override permissions.
Its very simple, when two rules contradict each other, the one that is more specific must take precedence. When GW talks about advanced rules taking precedence over basic rules, this simply means something like: the basic rules for movement say that models move 6" in the movement phase. But then in the advanced rules they'll say stuff like: 'models using a jump pack in the movement phase move 12 inches'.
If the advanced rules didn't take precedence over the basic rules, then all models would move 6 inches in the movement phase, as advanced rules would be unable to override this basic tenant no matter what. In other words, 'advanced' really just means 'specific', while 'basic' really just means 'general'.
However, this does not mean that advanced rules always override basic rules, as restrictions still take precedence over permissions. For example, an advanced rule may say: 'models with jump packs are able to move 12" in the movement phase', but if a model has gone to ground, then the basic rules restriction against a model being able to move in the movement phase still overrides the advanced rules permission that the model can move 12" in the movement phase.
It is also even possible for a 'basic' rule to be specific enough to override an 'advanced' rule. For example, an advanced rule may say that jump pack models can move 12" in the movement phase, but if there happened to be a 'basic' rule which actually spelled out that jump pack models can only move 6" when moving into difficult terrain (just an imaginary example here), then that 'basic' rule would still take precedence over the 'advanced' rule because it was specific enough to actually mention that it applies to jump pack models.
Finally, when GW says that codexes take precedence over the rulebook, again this is a case of generally speaking, the codexes being more 'advanced' than the advanced rules in the rulebook. Meaning, if the advanced rules in the rulebook say that Jump Pack models move 12" in the movement phase but a codex says that a special unit moves like a Jump Pack model, but up to 18", then clearly the codex rule has to take precedence over the rulebook for the whole thing to work.
But just as before, restrictions still override permissions (even if the restriction is in the rulebook and the permission is in a codex) and it is possible for rules in the rulebook to be more specific than even a codex and therefore take precedence over the codex rules.
So please, please, please do not parrot the terms: 'codex > rulebook' and 'advanced > basic' without understanding that these concepts are not absolute. They ONLY apply when the rules between two sources actually contradict, not when one is a permission and the other is a restriction.
Alright, that argument I'll accept. Although, by disproving me, he has also proven this threads creator. FE does say that it can be taken as an allied detachment to a Tau Empire detachment. (Counting the GW errata). This is both an advanced rule, and a specific rule. Which overrides the general restriction in the base rulebook stating that allied detachments cannot be taken with the same faction as the primary detachment.
This, at least I can live with.
Squirrels are Evil
2015/04/14 13:03:50
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
FE does say that it can be taken as an allied detachment to a Tau Empire detachment. (Counting the GWerrata).
Incorrect FE makes no mention of the Allied Detachment. Read the rest of the thread this is clearly covered. Also conflict is irrelevant in both cases as there is no conflict in the rules.
FE allows you to ally with with TE, BrB allows you to ally TE & FE but not using Allied Detachment. No conflict.
Rulebook allows you to mix units from FE & TE in the aame detachment. FE has no units only rules that apply to a detachment. No conflict.
Well for one mark you are very wrong. Farsight's Commander Team is a FE specific unit. So, conflict. Conflict resolved as noted above.
And for the second, both the codex and the sup were written as 6th Edition rules and that needs to be taken into account, not that it isn't very clear in it's wording.
ALLIES
In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as battle brothers.
This does two things. It allows detachments from either book to be taken as allies for the other, and it states that they treat each other as Battle Brothers.
In 6th, there was no such thing as multiple cad's. Only primary and allies detachments. And battlebrothers was important. Now, they are still the same faction, but it still allows each to take the other as an allied detachment. I repeat, TE detachment can ally with FE detachment. Ally being the key word here.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/04/14 14:19:26
Squirrels are Evil
2015/04/14 15:09:11
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
GargoyleKing wrote: Well for one mark you are very wrong. Farsight's Commander Team is a FE specific unit. So, conflict. Conflict resolved as noted above.
And for the second, both the codex and the sup were written as 6th Edition rules and that needs to be taken into account, not that it isn't very clear in it's wording.
ALLIES
In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as battle brothers.
This does two things. It allows detachments from either book to be taken as allies for the other, and it states that they treat each other as Battle Brothers.
In 6th, there was no such thing as multiple cad's. Only primary and allies detachments. And battlebrothers was important. Now, they are still the same faction, but it still allows each to take the other as an allied detachment. I repeat, TE detachment can ally with FE detachment. Ally being the key word here.
6th Edition rules only need to be taken into consideration if we're playing 6th Edition... which we aren't.
Here is what we know under 7th Edition.
1. "Codex Tau Empire" (TE) is Faction: Tau Empire (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
2. "Farsight Enclaves: A Codex Tau Empire Supplement" (FE) is Faction: Tau Empire (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
3. Models with the same Faction may ally together as Battle Brothers (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
4. TE Models and FE Models may ally together as Battle Brothers (Per FE; Now redundant as the 7th Ed BRB says the same thing)
5. Allied Detachments (AD) cannot be your Primary Detachment (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
6. Your Warlord can never be chosen from an AD (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
7. All Units in an AD must have the same Faction, or have no Faction (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
8. All Units in an AD must have a different Faction from all Units in your Primary Detachment, or have no Faction (Per the 7th Ed BRB)
There is NO permission in FE to avoid the AD restrictions (number 5-8 above).
The permission in FE for TE and FE units to ally as Battle Brothers is redundant as this permission is also granted in the BRB. Same Faction models/units/detachments are always assumed to ally together as Battle Brothers.
This leaves us with two situation.
Situation #1 - Legal, breaks no rules
Combined Arms Detachment (Space Marines)(Primary Detachment - Warlord is in here)
Combined Arms Detachment (Tau Empire)
Allied Detachment (Farsight Enclaves)
Situation #2 - Illegal, violates AD restriction #8 above
Combined Arms Detachment (Tau Empire)(Primary Detachment - Warlord is in here)
Allied Detachment (Farsight Enclaves)
So, you see, you can have a TE CAD and an FEAD together in the same army assuming your Primary Detachment contains no Tau Empire units. You can't have a TE or FEAD if your Primary Detachment contains Tau Empire units.
I really think a lot of this confusion stems from people assuming "can ally with" means "can take an Allied Detachment". This is simply not the case. Try to get past the way things worked in 6th Edition. We're no longer playing 6th Edition.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
We are basically arguing about how an outdated source book interacts with a new rules set. If you feel like playing the game like this, enjoy. The disparity in rules sets and wording leaves at least a little room for translation errors. It's just a matter of who is making the errors in this case. And since GW doesn't clarify well, how about we agree to disagree.
Just don't expect me to play with you if you micro analyze every wording disparity.
Squirrels are Evil
2015/04/14 17:29:18
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
GargoyleKing wrote: We are basically arguing about how an outdated source book interacts with a new rules set. If you feel like playing the game like this, enjoy. The disparity in rules sets and wording leaves at least a little room for translation errors. It's just a matter of who is making the errors in this case. And since GW doesn't clarify well, how about we agree to disagree.
Just don't expect me to play with you if you micro analyze every wording disparity.
So unless your opponent allows you to do something clearly against the rules you won't play them? Great attitude.
You need to calm down, then read how you build an army in 7th Ed and you'll notice allies and the Allied Detachment are not the same thing (or even particularly related). This was all covered in detail in the first 2 pages including any RaI argument. RaW and RaI clearly match up here no AD TE/FE if your primary is the other one.
Also note the Farsight bodyguard are not a FE unit. Check the rules again they are a bunch of TE units with specific wargear and extra rules that they ONLY get from being taken in a FE detachment. Heck there's no points nor profiles for any of them in the codex! Once again please read the relevant rules. There are no FE units just a list of rules that effect FE detachments.
GargoyleKing wrote: We are basically arguing about how an outdated source book interacts with a new rules set. If you feel like playing the game like this, enjoy. The disparity in rules sets and wording leaves at least a little room for translation errors. It's just a matter of who is making the errors in this case. And since GW doesn't clarify well, how about we agree to disagree.
Just don't expect me to play with you if you micro analyze every wording disparity.
So unless your opponent allows you to do something clearly against the rules you won't play them? Great attitude.
You need to calm down, then read how you build an army in 7th Ed and you'll notice allies and the Allied Detachment are not the same thing (or even particularly related). This was all covered in detail in the first 2 pages including any RaI argument. RaW and RaI clearly match up here no AD TE/FE if your primary is the other one.
Also note the Farsight bodyguard are not a FE unit. Check the rules again they are a bunch of TE units with specific wargear and extra rules that they ONLY get from being taken in a FE detachment. Heck there's no points nor profiles for any of them in the codex! Once again please read the relevant rules. There are no FE units just a list of rules that effect FE detachments.
Actually, the Farisight Bodyguard ICs do have names, points and profiles in the FE book. They just don't have Army List Entries. They're basically a footnote inside a special rule. I have the iBooks Interactive Edition. I have to click on one of the rules to get the profiles to pop up.
Having said that, Farsight Enclaves isn't a Faction, so there is no such thing as a Farsight Enclaves Unit.
Also, 99% of these sorts of threads are based upon a handful of individuals holding onto 6th Edition and not understanding that allies and Allied Detachments are two very, very different things. Army list building in 7th Edition just works very differently.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
Yes, a unit full of independant characters some of which would never be allowed to be such. It doesn't matter regardless, the point of mentioning it was to point out that his statement was incorrect. They still can't be brought into a TE detachment, as was the whole point I'd begun with. This is still a unit that is exclusive to the FE and by saying it isn't, you invalidate your credibility as well. There may not be any profiles or data sheets, but the unit does clearly use some FE specific upgrades and rules.
As for the other, I simply refuse to play with somebody who wants to rules lawyer his way through a game to his own advantage. This was obviously a hot topic in the first place, judging by the hub-bub before I stepped in to say anything. So, the point is obviously something that can be left up to a certain degree of interpretation.
They obviously meant for TE to ally with FE or they would not have added the Allies rule into the book in the first place. So, don't try to tell me it's RAI. If anything, I'd sight GW for poor rules wording in the first place, as they made allowances for older publications and forgot to errata the restrictions of the older publications as well.
So, I'll give you no mixing codex and supplement units for a faction army. But, you can't have your cake and eat it too. FE and TE can take each other as allies.
Besides, the cake is a lie. `;~}
Squirrels are Evil
2015/04/14 19:05:52
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
I understand that. I'm not ignorant thank you very much. But, the point that I am making doesn't seem to be sinking in. Thy lath said it better.
Y'all are applying rules that didn't exist to a 6th edition codex, when Codex: Tau came out there was only primary detachment and an ally (not allied detachment) per primary detachment. The rule existed then as it does now that the allies must be from a different codex than the primary detachment. Your saying the rule in the FE applies to CADs, which could not be possible as CADs did not exist in 6th edition. The rule is very specific in what it meant then and it means the same now. As there was no other types of detachments than the primary, allies means allied detachment. Which means that since GW hates to errata stuff, RAW it can only mean one thing. There is no RAI in this, sometimes you have to go back to when a book was written to figure out what the rule really means.
The 6th Ed Rulebook had the same basic don't ally with your supplements rule. But this one allowed for it with the Allies rule. If it was not meant to ally with the codex, the rule would not have been added. This is merely a poor way to say... "Go ahead."
Squirrels are Evil
2015/04/14 19:27:48
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
GargoyleKing wrote: We are basically arguing about how an outdated source book interacts with a new rules set. If you feel like playing the game like this, enjoy. The disparity in rules sets and wording leaves at least a little room for translation errors. It's just a matter of who is making the errors in this case. And since GW doesn't clarify well, how about we agree to disagree.
Just don't expect me to play with you if you micro analyze every wording disparity.
Games Workshop explicitly changed the wording from "ally" to "take an Allied Detachment" for the official 7th edition update for Codex: Space Marines but made no such change to the wording for Farsight Enclaves in its update.
If they had intended Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves to take an Allied Detachment of the other when one was the primary detachment then they would have said so. They have not so they did not.
2015/04/14 19:29:41
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
GargoyleKing wrote: I understand that. I'm not ignorant thank you very much. But, the point that I am making doesn't seem to be sinking in. Thy lath said it better.
Y'all are applying rules that didn't exist to a 6th edition codex, when Codex: Tau came out there was only primary detachment and an ally (not allied detachment) per primary detachment. The rule existed then as it does now that the allies must be from a different codex than the primary detachment. Your saying the rule in the FE applies to CADs, which could not be possible as CADs did not exist in 6th edition. The rule is very specific in what it meant then and it means the same now. As there was no other types of detachments than the primary, allies means allied detachment. Which means that since GW hates to errata stuff, RAW it can only mean one thing. There is no RAI in this, sometimes you have to go back to when a book was written to figure out what the rule really means.
The 6th Ed Rulebook had the same basic don't ally with your supplements rule. But this one allowed for it with the Allies rule. If it was not meant to ally with the codex, the rule would not have been added. This is merely a poor way to say... "Go ahead."
In 7th they changed how allies work completely - you're aware of this.
But what you refuse to accept is that maybe GW wrote the new ally/allied detachment rules with supplements like this in mind.
I don't know why you refuse to accept it, but there you go.
My beautiful wife wrote:Trucks = Carnifex snack, Tanks = meals.
2015/04/14 19:35:25
Subject: Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?
Actually, the Farisight Bodyguard ICs do have names, points and profiles in the FE book. They just don't have Army List Entries. They're basically a footnote inside a special rule. I have the iBooks Interactive Edition. I have to click on one of the rules to get the profiles to pop up.
Having said that, Farsight Enclaves isn't a Faction, so there is no such thing as a Farsight Enclaves Unit.
Also, 99% of these sorts of threads are based upon a handful of individuals holding onto 6th Edition and not understanding that allies and Allied Detachments are two very, very different things. Army list building in 7th Edition just works very differently.
No points costs or profiles in the official hard back rules. But yes they are referenced in the eBook copy. And the rest of your post is 100% accurate.
