Farsight Commander Bravestorm + Allied Tau Commander with Iridium Armor Legal?

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.

**GargoyleKing**

So, if they changed Space Marines, good for them. But you don't get credit for going halvsies. If a rule has no meaning then you should remove it. They haven't, thus, it's still up in the air.

Besides, you have to realize that different people write different codex's, or did. And almost certainly, they did the same with the updated errata. One guy thought to fix something, while another didn't know something needed fixing.

Honestly, I don't care. I play the game to have fun. And if a Tourney or some jerk wants to make a deal about it, I can just take my toys and go home. I have other ways to enjoy life.

**FlingitNow**

GargoyleKing wrote:
So, if they changed Space Marines, good for them. But you don't get credit for going halvsies. If a rule has no meaning then you should remove it. They haven't, thus, it's still up in the air.

Besides, you have to realize that different people write different codex's, or did. And almost certainly, they did the same with the updated errata. One guy thought to fix something, while another didn't know something needed fixing.

Honestly, I don't care. I play the game to have fun. And if a Tourney or some jerk wants to make a deal about it, I can just take my toys and go home. I have other ways to enjoy life.

So if I wanted to play my marines as T10 and costing 1point per model, you'd be fine with that? Or are you some jerk who wants to make a deal about it, I can just take my toys and go home.

**Kriswall**

GargoyleKing wrote:
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. `;~}

I 100% agree with you that FE and TE can ally with each other. Both the 7th Edition BRB and the FE book say so. Neither book says you can take a Tau Empire/Farsight Enclaves Allied Detachment with a Tau Empire/Farsight Enclaves Primary Detachment. If you think you can, one of two things is happening. Either you don't understand the changes that occurred between 6th and 7th Edition or you do understand the differences but have decided to ignore the new rules and stick with the old ones.

**GargoyleKing**

Flingit, I am not making stuff up here. Only seeing a slightly different rules interpretation than you are. If you can't handle mine, don't play against me. Just please drop the jerk crap.

And for the rest of you, fine. Do as you like. I'm done arguing about the same 3 sentences of text back and forth with no conclusion in sight. You read it one way, others read it another. We're done here.

**FlingitNow**

GargoyleKing wrote:
Flingit, I am not making stuff up here. Only seeing a slightly different rules interpretation than you are. If you can't handle mine, don't play against me. Just please drop the jerk crap.

And for the rest of you, fine. Do as you like. I'm done arguing about the same 3 sentences of text back and forth with no conclusion in sight. You read it one way, others read it another. We're done here.

It is not that you read the sentences differently. It is that you are making stuff up and not actually offering up anything in return. You can play by whatever rules your group agree to but it says a lot about you as a gamer if you refuse to play others and pack up your toys because they won't play by your made up rules. If GW want FE to work like marines they would have FAQd them the same way when they released the first batch of 7th Ed FAQs. SMs were the only ones to get this different FAQ and none of the Supplements got that change. Why would GW waste ink removing a rule that works perfectly fine as a redundant reminder in the new edition.

**Mr. Shine**

GargoyleKing wrote:
So, if they changed Space Marines, good for them. But you don't get credit for going halvsies. If a rule has no meaning then you should remove it. They haven't, thus, it's still up in the air.

Besides, you have to realize that different people write different codex's, or did. And almost certainly, they did the same with the updated errata. One guy thought to fix something, while another didn't know something needed fixing.

Honestly, I don't care. I play the game to have fun. And if a Tourney or some jerk wants to make a deal about it, I can just take my toys and go home. I have other ways to enjoy life.

You're missing the point that the rule does have meaning. It may be redundant to state again as it's already in the core rules, but that doesn't make it meaningless. The meaning of allying in 7th has changed. The fact they have not removed it means you have to take the new meaning to ally as per 7th edition, not apply the 6th edition equivalent.

It's a pointless "out" to claim you don't care when you're on an internet forum debating its merits as much as anyone else here. You have no moral high ground here, I'm sorry.

**Vector Strike**

Sadly, this won't be the last time discussing this issue, just like psyker units...

**Nilok**

Well, I do have a small hope that the reason they haven't FAQ'd anything in the Tau Codex and Farsight Enclaves is the same reason they didn't for Necron's CCB Phase Shifter, the codex in close enough to release that they don't want to dedicate any resources to it.

Who knows, Maybe the Farsight Enclaves will be turned into a special detachment/formation in the main codex.

**Vector Strike**

Nilok wrote:
Well, I do have a small hope that the reason they haven't FAQ'd anything in the Tau Codex and Farsight Enclaves is the same reason they didn't for Necron's CCB Phase Shifter, the codex in close enough to release that they don't want to dedicate any resources to it.

Who knows, Maybe the Farsight Enclaves will be turned into a special detachment/formation in the main codex.

With the Iyanden-like formation inside the Eldar's new FOC, I believe that will be the case as well. With the limitation that you cannot field Aun'Va/Shadowsun in the core/command cadre formation.

I fear the Seven dwarfs - sorry, commanders - will be gone, though.