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.

Was about to play a game with my Son who made a farsight enclave list and included 2 farsight enclave commanders and then added Shadowsun as she is not a farsight enclave commander. The rule itself says "you can include no more than two farsight enclaves commander units in each detatchment" Can she then be added as a third commander without breaking any rule as she is not a farsight enclaves commander? If Farsight enclaves ( a subfaction from codex:tau empire) does not count as T'au Empire then this question is moot as she can only be in a T'au Empire detatchment.

It looks like you can do it, but you would lose the Aggressive Footing ability it seems.

As long as all of the other units were FARSIGHT ENCLAVES units, they would still gain a Sept Tenet because of Commander Shadowsun's Supreme Commander rule.

 DeathReaper wrote:
It looks like you can do it, but you would lose the Aggressive Footing ability it seems.

As long as all of the other units were FARSIGHT ENCLAVES units, they would still gain a Sept Tenet because of Commander Shadowsun's Supreme Commander rule.

I agree. You'll lose Aggressive Footing because it's not a Sept Tenet, but you can theoretically include 2 FSE Commanders and Shadowsun in the same detachment.

You cannot include more than one Tau Commander per Detachment in Matched Play.

Farsight allows you to take two Farsight Commanders as an exception.

Therefore you cannot include three Commanders (2FS+SS) whilst satisfying both rules. Can’t be done. If you try and include Shadowsun there are already two Commanders. It’s fun wishful thinking, but not legal.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You cannot include more than one Tau Commander per Detachment in Matched Play.

Farsight allows you to take two Farsight Commanders as an exception.

Therefore you cannot include three Commanders (2FS+SS) whilst satisfying both rules. Can’t be done. If you try and include Shadowsun there are already two Commanders. It’s fun wishful thinking, but not legal.

But clearly the FSE rule is intended to replace the one in the codex, otherwise you couldn't satisfy both rules by taking two FSE commanders, since to do so would break the codex rule!

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You cannot include more than one Tau Commander per Detachment in Matched Play.

Farsight allows you to take two Farsight Commanders as an exception.

Therefore you cannot include three Commanders (2FS+SS) whilst satisfying both rules. Can’t be done. If you try and include Shadowsun there are already two Commanders. It’s fun wishful thinking, but not legal.

But clearly the FSE rule is intended to replace the one in the codex, otherwise you couldn't satisfy both rules by taking two FSE commanders, since to do so would break the codex rule!

Park this now. No-one needs you derailing another thread and mocking people in ways you hope are too subtle for mods to act on. Just... be better. I see the attempt at an insult, get over it. Very silly.

Everyone including you accepts that Special Rules supercede general rules. It’s how they function. So for the Farsight Commanders they have permission to exceed the one Commander limitation. Nothing allows you to add a third Commander by any means. As there are two Commanders already, by permission of a Special Rule, you couldn’t add a third without falling foul of the general limitation to one. It doesn’t turn that rule off because you’ve used the Farsight rule, they just have exemption.

This is the RAW of it.

 JohnnyHell wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
You cannot include more than one Tau Commander per Detachment in Matched Play.

Farsight allows you to take two Farsight Commanders as an exception.

Therefore you cannot include three Commanders (2FS+SS) whilst satisfying both rules. Can’t be done. If you try and include Shadowsun there are already two Commanders. It’s fun wishful thinking, but not legal.

But clearly the FSE rule is intended to replace the one in the codex, otherwise you couldn't satisfy both rules by taking two FSE commanders, since to do so would break the codex rule!

Park this now. No-one needs you derailing another thread and mocking people in ways you hope are too subtle for mods to act on. Just... be better. I see the attempt at an insult, get over it. Very silly.

Everyone including you accepts that Special Rules supercede general rules. It’s how they function. So for the Farsight Commanders they have permission to exceed the one Commander limitation. Nothing allows you to add a third Commander by any means. As there are two Commanders already, by permission of a Special Rule, you couldn’t add a third without falling foul of the general limitation to one. It doesn’t turn that rule off because you’ve used the Farsight rule, they just have exemption.

This is the RAW of it.

So either the 2 FSE commander rule replaces the codex one (it even has the same name), in which case you can add a 3rd non-FSE commander, or it's in tandem with it, which means you can't include 2 FSE commanders. The FSE rule says "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." It doesn't say you can take "additional" or "exceed" anything.

Sorry, but given that one interpretation "breaks" the rules, it means it has to be the other, which is that it replaces the codex one.

I am sorry if you felt my comment was an insult, it was not intended to be so.

Nope. You’re outlining incorrect summations.

Farsight Commanders have a rule allowing two. This rule does not replace the original rule, it’s a permission for one type of unit only. Show me where Tau Sept Commanders can have more than one Commander in a Detachment? Or where anyone but Farsight can? That would be the case if the PA rule for Farsight replaces the Codex rule. Heck, they’d have no restrictions if it outright replaced. The rule is only supplementary for Farsight units. Nothing says it replaces that rule for all so it does not.

I’ve outlined my working twice, and it is sound. Yours, however, simply is not. You’ve conveniently forgotten how special rules and core rules work to engineer an argument. It’s creative, but it’s wrong.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Nope. You’re outlining incorrect summations.

Farsight Commanders have a rule allowing two. This rule does not replace the original rule, it’s a permission for one type of unit only. Show me where Tau Sept Commanders can have more than one Commander in a Detachment? Or where anyone but Farsight can? That would be the case if the PA rule for Farsight replaces the Codex rule. Heck, they’d have no restrictions if it outright replaced. The rule is only supplementary for Farsight units. Nothing says it replaces that rule for all so it does not.

I’ve outlined my working twice, and it is sound. Yours, however, simply is not. You’ve conveniently forgotten how special rules and core rules work to engineer an argument. It’s creative, but it’s wrong.

Ok, look. Let's assume both rules apply.

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.

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

If both rules apply, then you're breaking the codex rule by including two FSE Commanders.

If only the FSE rule applies, then you can add Shadowsun. Which is it? Does only the FSE rule apply or do both the FSE and Codex rule apply? Which one is it? It has to be one or the other. A FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER is still a COMMANDER, as per the Core Book Glossary. Shadowsun is not a FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER (Keywords — multiples: A rule with multiple adjacent keywords (e.g. ‘an AELDARI GUARDIANS unit’) only matches a model or unit if that model or unit matches each of those keywords (pg 197)) so the 2 limit doesn't apply to her. A FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER is a COMMANDER, so the codex restriction does apply to them.

Let's maybe not use wrong logic?

We know permissions in Special Rules override core rules. It's how the game functions. Nothing here says "If this rule applies jettison the normal restrictions", however. It does not replace the original rule, it gives a wa around it. Same as for every other special rule ever. Assault weapons don't replace the core shooting rules They override them. FLY doesn't replace core movement rules. It overrides them for that unit. You seem to be conveniently forgetting this to be contrary.

Show me where a Detachment with (legally) two Farsight Commanders can now include another Commander? There is no such permission given anywhere.

There is no permission in either rule to include a third Commander. You're dodging my questions and constantly trying to reframe with false logic. I've demonstrated using game rules why my take works and yours is wrong, and you've yet to come back on how yours works other than to pretend a rule outright replaces another when there is no instruction given to do so. You've got specific criteria for it applying. Use those, not the ones you're inventing.

Done with this thread as you're gonna make it circular until thread lock, benefitting no-one.

 JohnnyHell wrote:
Show me where a Detachment with (legally) two Farsight Commanders can now include another Commander? There is no such permission given anywhere.

Show me the rule restricting how many non-FSE Commanders I can take?

If you mean the codex one, well, that one also applies to FSE Commanders. You can't have it both ways.

Fluff-wise, there is no way that Shadowsun should be fighting alongside a Farsight Enclaves army. The rules may technically allow it, but it's wrong. Just don't do it.

 Bilge Rat wrote:
Fluff-wise, there is no way that Shadowsun should be fighting alongside a Farsight Enclaves army. The rules may technically allow it, but it's wrong. Just don't do it.

Unless of course, the Tyranids turn up, in which case anything can happen.


I'm with JohnnyHell on this one.
If Farsight Commanders are still Commanders, then effectively you would have 3 Commanders and 2 Farsight Enclaves Commanders wrapped up in 3 models. The Farsight exception clearly makes that latter point ok, but at no point do you have permission to have 3 Commanders, Farsight or not. You still have to adhere to the original rule.

So in otherwords, if you have a farsight enclaves list, if you want to use Shadowsun, you have to use shadowsun as your only Commander model as she is not farsight enclaves so would not be part of the allowed extra "farsight enclave" commander and the original rule would disallow her once there is a second commander in play.

Fluff wise i love that, Shadowsun being in total control of a Farsight Enclaves army.

Multiple replies here (including mine! My bad) are missing some key words here...

"...in the same detachment".

You can absolutely run 2 Farsight Commanders, and Shadowsun in a different detachment. But you'll have to pay 2CP to do so.
If you wanna run Shadowsun in an otherwise Commander-less Farsight Enclaves list - kiss goodbye to the Sept bonus.

Isn't the FSE rule a specific that overrides general?

Also, I may be wrong as I'm working this off the top of my head - but isn't the keyword requirement [FARSIGHT ENCLAVE] [COMMANDER], and not [FARSIGHT ENCLAVE COMMANDER]? I understand the rule as to mean: "In battleforged FSE army, you can take up to two units with [FARSIGHT ENCLAVE] and [COMMANDER] keyword, given that the units in question has BOTH keywords."

So it's a specific additional allowance when all the conditions are met - in a battleforged army, you can only have 1 COMMANDER per detachment. However, in a battleforged FSE army, you can have 2 COMMANDERS given that they also have the FARSIGHT ENCLAVE keyword.

Under this parsing, in a FSE detachment, it would be legal to have: 1x Shadowsun + 1x FSE Commander or 2x FSE Commander

Alternatively, in pure RAW sense, in a battleforged FSE army, you can only include COMMANDER with FARSIGHT ENCLAVE keyword.

Is [FARSIGHT ENCLAVE COMMANDER] an actual existing keyword? or is it FARSIGHT ENCLAVE, COMMANDER?

No matter what the answers to above, I can't seem to derive anything that would allow 3 commanders in 1 detachment?

Oooooh... I've been looking at this wrong. BCB had it right.
The glossary distinguishes keywords that are and aren't comma-separated. Core book, page 366.

Keywords - comma-separated list: A rule with a comma-separated list of keywords, or two keywords separated by the word 'or' (...) matches a model or unit if any one of those keywords matches that model or unit.

Keywords - multiples: A rule with multiple adjacent keywords (...) only matches a model or unit if that model or unit matches each of those keywords.

Per that definition, a "Farsight Enclaves Commander" (which is not comma-separated) doesn't count as a "Commander". So they don't count towards the usual one Commander limit - nor does Shadowsun herself count towards the 2 Farsight Commander limit.

So you CAN put them in the same detachment! Still agreed that you'd lose any Sept bonuses, though.

 Super Ready wrote:
Oooooh... I've been looking at this wrong. BCB had it right.
The glossary distinguishes keywords that are and aren't comma-separated. Core book, page 366.

Keywords - comma-separated list: A rule with a comma-separated list of keywords, or two keywords separated by the word 'or' (...) matches a model or unit if any one of those keywords matches that model or unit.

Keywords - multiples: A rule with multiple adjacent keywords (...) only matches a model or unit if that model or unit matches each of those keywords.

Per that definition, a "Farsight Enclaves Commander" (which is not comma-separated) doesn't count as a "Commander". So they don't count towards the usual one Commander limit - nor does Shadowsun herself count towards the 2 Farsight Commander limit.

So you CAN put them in the same detachment! Still agreed that you'd lose any Sept bonuses, though.

But by extension of that logic, you can have unlimited amount of [COMMANDER] by taking FSE detachment but not taking [FARSIGHT ENCLAVE COMMANDERS], would it not?

When does standard '1 commander per detachment rule still applies' come into effect in this logic?

TBH, on a sixteenth reading, I am more leaning towards the FSE rule being fundamentally broken, tbh. It lets you take two FSE COMMANDERS, but the core codex rule of one COMMANDER period is never revoked, so you can't include the second FSE COMMANDER without breaking that rule.

It's almost like GW can't write rules gud.

I'm not seeing the logic there, skchsan. An FSE detachment doesn't override the restriction of one ordinary Commander per detachment, just by virtue of being an FSE detachment.
BCB, I don't agree that a "Farsight Enclaves Commander" is also a "Commander", mainly on the basis that the keyword phrase isn't comma-separated. On those grounds, I believe the two rules don't interact in any way. You can have a single Commander, and 2 Farsight Commanders, and never the twain keywords shall meet.

However, let's say you're right and I'm wrong and a Farsight Commander IS still a Commander too. ...we're still dealing with a permissive ruleset - so the rule that allows you to take 2 Farsight Commanders would override the restriction for one. It's the same Codex so it's not like we're talking Codex over core rules, or anything.

 Super Ready wrote:
I'm not seeing the logic there, skchsan. An FSE detachment doesn't override the restriction of one ordinary Commander per detachment, just by virtue of being an FSE detachment.
BCB, I don't agree that a "Farsight Enclaves Commander" is also a "Commander", mainly on the basis that the keyword phrase isn't comma-separated. On those grounds, I believe the two rules don't interact in any way. You can have a single Commander, and 2 Farsight Commanders, and never the twain keywords shall meet.

However, let's say you're right and I'm wrong and a Farsight Commander IS still a Commander too. ...we're still dealing with a permissive ruleset - so the rule that allows you to take 2 Farsight Commanders would override the restriction for one. It's the same Codex so it's not like we're talking Codex over core rules, or anything.

Keywords - multiples: A rule with multiple adjacent keywords (...) only matches a model or unit if that model or unit matches each of those keywords.

Keyword: Units have keywords on their datasheets. If a rule specifies that it applies to a model/unit with a keyword, it only applies to a model/unit that matches that keyword (i.e. has it on its datasheet). Pluralisation of keywords does not affect their ability to be matched (pg 197).

A FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER meets the criteria for the only one COMMANDER rule in the codex, but a SA'CEA COMMANDER doesn't meet the criteria for a FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER.

 Bilge Rat wrote:
Fluff-wise, there is no way that Shadowsun should be fighting alongside a Farsight Enclaves army. The rules may technically allow it, but it's wrong. Just don't do it.

Except for the fact that she did, during the campaign where Aun'Va died.

 BaconCatBug wrote:
TBH, on a sixteenth reading, I am more leaning towards the FSE rule being fundamentally broken, tbh. It lets you take two FSE COMMANDERS, but the core codex rule of one COMMANDER period is never revoked, so you can't include the second FSE COMMANDER without breaking that rule.

It's almost like GW can't write rules gud.

On that basis, no Special Rules work, and you can add every Special Rule to your sig.

No, I think that BaconCatBug's interpretation is correct. It doesn't override, so FS cmdr is a subgroup of cmdr, making the rule do nothing. It should say something like FS may include up to 2 or something that specifies an additional option.

But it's GW, so when RAW is stupid, fall back on clear intention.

 Super Ready wrote:
I'm not seeing the logic there, skchsan. An FSE detachment doesn't override the restriction of one ordinary Commander per detachment, just by virtue of being an FSE detachment.
BCB, I don't agree that a "Farsight Enclaves Commander" is also a "Commander", mainly on the basis that the keyword phrase isn't comma-separated. On those grounds, I believe the two rules don't interact in any way. You can have a single Commander, and 2 Farsight Commanders, and never the twain keywords shall meet.

However, let's say you're right and I'm wrong and a Farsight Commander IS still a Commander too. ...we're still dealing with a permissive ruleset - so the rule that allows you to take 2 Farsight Commanders would override the restriction for one. It's the same Codex so it's not like we're talking Codex over core rules, or anything.

1. If FSE special clause does not override the generic rule for commanders, then as BCB notes the entire rule for FSE doesn't work RAW since you must fulfill the requirements for both rules (so you can never take more than 1 Commander, ever).
2. While Commander does not count as FSE Commander, FSE Commander counts as a Commander - otherwise you can never include any FSE Commander in non-FSE detachment because it must match each keyword if we follow the same logic (FSE Commander =! Commander). In the same line of logic, then FSE Commander can never trigger the 1 Commander limit in a non-FSE detachment. Also in the same line of logic, then Commanders in non-FSE detachment can never take a sept tenet since [<Sept> Commander] =! Commander.
3. If, by virtue of ["Commander =! FSE Commander" therefore Commander can be included in FSE detachment without spending FSE Commander allowance] argument, following the logic above there is nothing that prevents you from taking more than 1 Commander that is not FSE Commander in a FSE detachment.

BaconCatBug wrote:A FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER meets the criteria for the only one COMMANDER rule in the codex

...because the rule refers to a single-word keyword, which isn't covered in that glossary extract...? Yeah, I see the reasoning. I don't think it's defined either way, though.

skchsan wrote:otherwise you can never include any FSE Commander in non-FSE detachment because it must match each keyword if we follow the same logic (FSE Commander =! Commander).

Confession time - I don't have the Codexes, I'm going purely by what's presented in this thread. I must be missing something here though. Surely they share a faction keyword beyond just FSE? Meaning they can be in the same detachment, but not necessarily without breaking Septs.

 Super Ready wrote:

 BaconCatBug wrote:
A FARSIGHT ENCLAVES COMMANDER meets the criteria for the only one COMMANDER rule in the codex

...because the rule refers to a single-word keyword, which isn't covered in that glossary extract...? Yeah, I see the reasoning. I don't think it's defined either way, though.

the "Keyword" glossary entry defines how single keywords work, they apply if the unit has the keyword at all. The "comma separated" entry is to deal with keyword that are multiple words. For example, a unit with THOUSAND SONS, CHAOS has two keywords, THOUSAND SONS and CHAOS, not three keywords, THOUSAND, SONS, and CHAOS.

Well, the exact wording is that it applies if the unit's keyword "matches" the one in the rule. That's what isn't defined - does the word appearing on its own in a non-comma-separated phrase count as a match? I don't think it does, and I'm taking the existence of the other glossary's definitions as intent, but I accept that as it's not defined, RAW is unclear.

I CAN give further examples, though - the existence of "Chaos" and "<Mark of Chaos>", or "Daemon" and "Daemon Engine", show where existing keywords can be part of longer phrases. It's just that I'm not aware of any cases where that actually makes a difference.

For our home play for now until it is faq'd we are going to change what it says to "2 commanders" instead of "2 farsight enclave commanders" as that feels like how it was suppose to say.

Assuming GW worded it that way knowingly the only reasons would be either to allow a third commander or to make sure only farsight could be chosen as a special commander in the list.

That's I think a bold assumption given their history of errors. I wouldn't hesitate to say that the intent is that normally commanders are limited to one and that FSE is an exception that limits it to 2 instead. I think that any other version is nonsensical (like BCB indicated) or overly liberally interpreting it for advantage.

Usually, if GW's rules lead to an absurd scenario, it's likely that they assumed players would read into their intent rather than literally.