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.

Yeah,

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 A Kvlt Ghost wrote:
Not to interrupt, but just to be clear - there's no book version of this at all, it's purely digital?

No real book on paper for 3 months...

do you think this is the start of something great?
Maybe they release everything digital, live playtest, then release a more perfect paper copy.

Panic.

 gossipmeng wrote:


Having a look at what we trade for crisis troops it is actually appearing more like a fun novelty army than anything competitive :(

"Ultimately an army with 2 wounds each has got plenty going for it."

pantsonhead wrote:
But it's not saying that the Commander Team replaces the Crisis Bodyguard Team. "He has the Commander Team instead" is not equivalent to "Farsight's Commander Team can be taken in place of a Crisis Bodyguard Team for Commander Farsight".

This is where we will have to agree to disagree then because, to me, that very clearly is saying that the Commander Team replaces the Crisis Bodyguard team. In fact, I'm really not sure how you can read "Commander Farsight does not allow you to take an XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team as normal; he has the Commander Team instead" as anything other than that!

I guess we'll have to wait for the FAQ.

 Morollan wrote:

pantsonhead wrote:
But it's not saying that the Commander Team replaces the Crisis Bodyguard Team. "He has the Commander Team instead" is not equivalent to "Farsight's Commander Team can be taken in place of a Crisis Bodyguard Team for Commander Farsight".

This is where we will have to agree to disagree then because, to me, that very clearly is saying that the Commander Team replaces the Crisis Bodyguard team. In fact, I'm really not sure how you can read "Commander Farsight does not allow you to take an XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team as normal; he has the Commander Team instead" as anything other than that!

I guess we'll have to wait for the FAQ.

You can choose to have the regular 7 man bodyguard team or use the unit called "Farsight's command team".

Supplement says "When choosing an Enclave army, you have access to a special unit called the "Farsight's command team" if you choose to take this unit, commander farsight does not allow you to take an XV8 Crisis team as normal".

its a choice, do you want the regular 1-7 bodyguard team or do you want to use "The Eight"

Just found a discussion on Mike Brandt (NOVA Head Honcho)'s blog, which seems to be leaning towards my interpretation.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/farsight-enclaves-getting-rules-corect.html?showComment=1374294360567

 Morollan wrote:
Just found a discussion on Mike Brandt (NOVA Head Honcho)'s blog, which seems to be leaning towards my interpretation.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/farsight-enclaves-getting-rules-corect.html?showComment=1374294360567

one more time

Supplement says "When choosing an Enclave army, you have access to a special unit called the "Farsight's command team "if you choose to take this unit" ,commander farsight does not allow you to take an XV8 Crisis team as normal".

So once agian, you either get to use the Eight OR you get the regular command squad.

 Panic wrote:
Yeah,

 NeedleOfInquiry wrote:

 A Kvlt Ghost wrote:
Not to interrupt, but just to be clear - there's no book version of this at all, it's purely digital?

No real book on paper for 3 months...

do you think this is the start of something great?
Maybe they release everything digital, live playtest, then release a more perfect paper copy.

Panic.

Brilliant.

 Ninjacommando wrote:

 Morollan wrote:
Just found a discussion on Mike Brandt (NOVA Head Honcho)'s blog, which seems to be leaning towards my interpretation.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/farsight-enclaves-getting-rules-corect.html?showComment=1374294360567

one more time

Supplement says "When choosing an Enclave army, you have access to a special unit called the "Farsight's command team "if you choose to take this unit" ,commander farsight does not allow you to take an XV8 Crisis team as normal".

So once agian, you either get to use the Eight OR you get the regular command squad.

I agree. As long as you take Farsight. Which is what I've been saying all along.

I find it interesting no one has mentioned Ward wrote both supplements

 Dozer Blades wrote:
I find it interesting no one has mentioned Ward wrote both supplements

Well, it explains the confusion and hatred people are spewing forth.

On a different note, does anyone think GW is going to start expanding stories that they have never explained more or advancing their timelines? I know that a lot of people liked having their own version of why Farsight turned, but I like having the established fluff myself as well.

Noc

Ward wrote this supplement? Got to say that he did a pretty good job with the fluff. Well maybe except for the part where farsight does his whole zen meditation/trance thing; that was a little silly. Other than that it's a great read for anyone interested in Farsight.

Rules wise, well i'm bias, i've been waiting for crisis suit troops for ages so i'm happy. Having to take a full crisis team isn't an issue, and in my currrent 1500 farsight list having to pay for the bonding knife ritual on those who can only adds 19 points to my army.
Having their own signature systems in place of the codex ones, while bad for some builds, has its own merits and makes sense from a fluff perspective.

Having said that there some oddities in the rules (typos and errors are another topic entirely). You can take ethereals in his army! It only restricts Aun'va, which contradicts the fluff with that there are no ethereals in the farsight enclaves.
Then there are the warlords traits, which are a little hit and miss. WS5 commander? Well, nice if he has fusion blades, but that's about it.
Picking one of the neurochip special rules for the rest of the game is imo the best one out of the lot.
One use only -1 mod to enemy reserves, meh.
Fearless warlord, with all tau within 6" stubborn, i can see use for fearless but there are better traits.
+1 reserve rolls for crisis suits is just too situational to rely on the random warlord roll.
Lasty there's the one use only shred rule for one shooting phase for the warlord and his unit, useful, stick him in with some missile broadsides and watch the pain.

Then there's the vague working in the Commander team rules, i think we've all seen the ongoing 'how it works' talks.

"If you choose to take this unit" comes BEFORE anything else, with the exception of "Have access to" (which, in itself, implies choice as well).

I think it's really blatantly obvious that you get the choice before any future restrictions come into play. Otherwise they'd list the restrictions FIRST before saying things like "have access to" and "if you choose to take this unit". Honestly, if someone says to a Farsight Enclave player, "You can't take Farsight without the special commander team!", all he really has to do is say "I choose not to take the special commander team". Any analysis of the words show that the rules woudl agree with the Farsight player's choice, because it specifically says right off the bat that it's a choice.

Was that really one of the main points of contention, though? It's obvious that you have the choice to use the special command team or not. What seems "unclear" is whether or not Farsight is required in order to gain access to said command team.

And really, I think we all know how it's supposed to work, so there's really no point in going on with the debate on that one. GW will have to FAQ it, but until then I wouldn't go crazy and start buying lots of models for a Farsight army and then find out it doesn't work the way you expected.

since the only way to get the 7 suit bodyguard in the Tau Codex is to take Farsight, it seems obvious to me that one should have to take Farsight to get the 7 suit character team in the Enclave...
otherwise, you've just broken the Tau Codex, and get the extra guys without having to pay the Farsight tax...

cheers
jah

 jah-joshua wrote:
since the only way to get the 7 suit bodyguard in the Tau Codex is to take Farsight, it seems obvious to me that one should have to take Farsight to get the 7 suit character team in the Enclave...
otherwise, you've just broken the Tau Codex, and get the extra guys without having to pay the Farsight tax...

cheers
jah

This is a potential argument, and a good one. For all we know, an FAQ will allow a standard commander to choose three of the seven.

I would have to say after reading it that yeah the new "Farsight’s Commander Team" rule works with any Commander HQ choice since it says they must be chosen from up to seven 'Other' suits. Meaning of course that there must be one (suit, not a member of the 8) in the first place. I read nothing that states you have to pick Farsight, only that if you do, he does NOT have the option for anything but the commanders team. A regular Commander could do the FCT or a normal 2-man crisis suit bodyguard team. All in all though, yeah not a bad little update. It could have been worse that's for sure.

 guinness707 wrote:
I would have to say after reading it that yeah the new "Farsight’s Commander Team" rule works with any Commander HQ choice since it says they must be chosen from up to seven 'Other' suits. Meaning of course that there must be one (suit, not a member of the 8) in the first place. I read nothing that states you have to pick Farsight, only that if you do, he does NOT have the option for anything but the commanders team. A regular Commander could do the FCT or a normal 2-man crisis suit bodyguard team. All in all though, yeah not a bad little update. It could have been worse that's for sure.

I find this interpretation even weirder than the one that says you have to take Farsight to take the Commander Team. There's absolutely nothing in there about the Commander Team replacing the Bodyguard Team for regular Commanders. You can take the Commander Team and an Ethereal (you need an HQ choice that uses a slot), and you can take the Commander Team and a Commander with a Bodyguard Team. What you can't do is take the Commander Team and Farsight with a Bodyguard Team (though you could have all three units in the same list if the Bodyguard Team is attached to a regular Commander). That's the only combination which is ruled out.

The entry is really quite clear that the unit consists of only selections from the seven non-Farsight suits. It doesn't include a first suit - it "consists of up to seven other suits" and nothing else. "Other" is preventing you from including Farsight in the slot-less choice, and can't be read to be talking about any model besides Farsight.

The internets are afire tonite, it seems.

I'm just happy I could field a Crisis Suit allied contingent to support my deathwing.

 Morollan wrote:
Just found a discussion on Mike Brandt (NOVA Head Honcho)'s blog, which seems to be leaning towards my interpretation.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/farsight-enclaves-getting-rules-corect.html?showComment=1374294360567

Not talking about you, but about that blog entry:

Even though you like the conclusion here, surely it's apparent that this person has a terrible grasp of English. "Other" means "non-Farsight" and in no way implies that the unit must include Farsight (??? the entry is very clear that the unit does not include Farsight) or that Farsight must be in your list. This is not an uncommon word or construction. I show you eight toys. I say "This one is my favorite. You can choose up to seven other toys to play with." I'm very clearly giving you permission to play with any toy /except/ my favorite. I'm probably telling you that you /can't/ play with my favorite.

pantsonhead wrote:

 Morollan wrote:
Just found a discussion on Mike Brandt (NOVA Head Honcho)'s blog, which seems to be leaning towards my interpretation.

http://whiskey40k.blogspot.co.uk/2013/07/farsight-enclaves-getting-rules-corect.html?showComment=1374294360567

Not talking about you, but about that blog entry:

Even though you like the conclusion here, surely it's apparent that this person has a terrible grasp of English. "Other" means "non-Farsight" and in no way implies that the unit must include Farsight (??? the entry is very clear that the unit does not include Farsight) or that Farsight must be in your list. This is not an uncommon word or construction. I show you eight toys. I say "This one is my favorite. You can choose up to seven other toys to play with." I'm very clearly giving you permission to play with any toy /except/ my favorite. I'm probably telling you that you /can't/ play with my favorite.

Sorry but the only way that paragraph reads the way you think it reads is if you ignore certain words. The only logical way to read that entry is that Farsight is required. You simply do not have permission to take the Commander Team without him. And bearing it mind that it looks as though the largest 40K tournament is likely to be using that ruling it probably makes sense to go with it rather than trying to bend the rules to suit your interpretation and have this argument with every opponent you face.

Nocturus wrote:
Just be sure everyone is swamping the GW FAQ email with these questions. I sent them in myself already as we'll.

I wish such action was worthwhile, but remember all those questions we had about Codex: Tau Empire?

They haven't updated their FAQ since the day the Codex was released.

 Morollan wrote:

Sorry but the only way that paragraph reads the way you think it reads is if you ignore certain words. The only logical way to read that entry is that Farsight is required. You simply do not have permission to take the Commander Team without him. And bearing it mind that it looks as though the largest 40K tournament is likely to be using that ruling it probably makes sense to go with it rather than trying to bend the rules to suit your interpretation and have this argument with every opponent you face.

I think it's pretty plausible that GW intended it to require Farsight. I'm not at all opposed to a tournament ruling it that way, if they think very easy access to a fourth (IC) Riptide is a bit much. But that's hardly relevant to determining what the thing they've actually written means, which seems to be either that you can take the Commander Team without Farsight or that you can never take the Commander Team (depending on whether or not you think you're given general permission to take it - I lean towards yes). I'm left unsure after your post whether or not you'd actually defend the blog's butchering of the word "other". And obviously it's just incredibly confused when it's talking as if Farsight is part of Farsight's Commander Team. Regular Commanders aren't even part of their Bodyguard Teams.

Again, it's not making the argument you're making - that there's no permission to take the unit unless you read "he has the Commander Team instead" as permission to take the unit when you have Farsight. The blog outright disagrees with you - it seems to read the first line as permission to take the unit. It takes the second line to mean that Farsight can't take a Bodyguard Team at all in a Farsight Enclaves army, which is a pretty embarrassing error of comprehension given that that sentence starts out "If you choose to take Farsight's Commander Team..." Then it reads the third line as the one that requires you to have Farsight when you take Farsight's Commander Team, on the grounds that apparently in 40k you can't make heads or tails of the word "other" unless the thing being distinguished from is also in your list, even though it was specified in the previous sentence in the rule. So fix the things that the blog is indefensibly wrong about and it seems to be coming down on my side. Edit: Oh, and they take the fact that Farsight's name appears next to the seven other names to mean that he's part of Farsight's Commander Team. I guess they're ruling that Farsight doesn't take up a force org slot?

 Archonate wrote:

Nocturus wrote:
Just be sure everyone is swamping the GW FAQ email with these questions. I sent them in myself already as we'll.

I wish such action was worthwhile, but remember all those questions we had about Codex: Tau Empire?

They haven't updated their FAQ since the day the Codex was released.

Be that as it may, if you don't send in the questions you have (and I've sent in everyone I've had), then it's silly if you sit around and complain as you've done nothing to better your situation. Kinda like people on welfare who gripe that their neighbor who works 60 hours a week has nicer stuff than them while they do drugs, and don't look for a job.

 davou wrote:

valace2 wrote:

 davou wrote:

Ummm, I looked at that page and nowhere does it say anything of the kind. If you have a primary detachment it follows the rules for that detachment, and an allied detachment follows the rules for that detachment. Its a PIA I admit, but each force follows its own rules.

Here is the exact quote out of the book;

In this case, your Warlord can be from either of the primary detachments in your army.

That means that army encapsulates the detachments. One army, multiple detachments within that army

that quote is referring to multiple primary detachments in a 2000+ pt double FOC game. Not defining a primary and allied detachment.

Indeed so, but it cleary spells out how the word army is used in the context of 40k, is there anywhere else this is defined?

Problem is, GW has a pretty terrible track record of RAW and RAI not matching up, especially when indirectly connecting a=b, b=c, therefore a=c, with their rules. In some systems where the authors have very tight language, I'd agree that that was evidence, but I'd say that that indirect connection doesn't necessarily mean anything, coming from GW.

pantsonhead wrote:

 Morollan wrote:

Sorry but the only way that paragraph reads the way you think it reads is if you ignore certain words. The only logical way to read that entry is that Farsight is required. You simply do not have permission to take the Commander Team without him. And bearing it mind that it looks as though the largest 40K tournament is likely to be using that ruling it probably makes sense to go with it rather than trying to bend the rules to suit your interpretation and have this argument with every opponent you face.

I think it's pretty plausible that GW intended it to require Farsight. I'm not at all opposed to a tournament ruling it that way, if they think very easy access to a fourth (IC) Riptide is a bit much. But that's hardly relevant to determining what the thing they've actually written means, which seems to be either that you can take the Commander Team without Farsight or that you can never take the Commander Team (depending on whether or not you think you're given general permission to take it - I lean towards yes). I'm left unsure after your post whether or not you'd actually defend the blog's butchering of the word "other". And obviously it's just incredibly confused when it's talking as if Farsight is part of Farsight's Commander Team. Regular Commanders aren't even part of their Bodyguard Teams.

Again, it's not making the argument you're making - that there's no permission to take the unit unless you read "he has the Commander Team instead" as permission to take the unit when you have Farsight. The blog outright disagrees with you - it seems to read the first line as permission to take the unit. It takes the second line to mean that Farsight can't take a Bodyguard Team at all in a Farsight Enclaves army, which is a pretty embarrassing error of comprehension given that that sentence starts out "If you choose to take Farsight's Commander Team..." Then it reads the third line as the one that requires you to have Farsight when you take Farsight's Commander Team, on the grounds that apparently in 40k you can't make heads or tails of the word "other" unless the thing being distinguished from is also in your list, even though it was specified in the previous sentence in the rule. So fix the things that the blog is indefensibly wrong about and it seems to be coming down on my side. Edit: Oh, and they take the fact that Farsight's name appears next to the seven other names to mean that he's part of Farsight's Commander Team. I guess they're ruling that Farsight doesn't take up a force org slot?

The only part of Mike's post on that blog that I disagree with is that Farsight is part of the Commander Team. The rest of his points are all fine and in fact if you remove that assumption you arrive precisely at my view of the rule, ie that you must take Farsight if you want to take the Commander Team and that it replaces his normal bodyguard. But with your interpretation you need to remove words to get it to fit. I've removed the superfluous words from the rules (shown in red) to get to your interpretation.

When choosing a Farsight Enclaves Army, you have access to a special unit called Farsight's Commander Team. If you choose to take this unit, Commander Farsight does not allow you to take an XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team as normal; he has the Commander Team instead. This special unit is an HQ choice that does not take up a Force Organisation Slot and consists of up to seven other battlesuits chosen from the Eight listed below.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this. it's going to need a FAQ and in the meantime I will be erring on the side of caution and not trying to field the Commander Team without Farsight.

seems to me, if you take farisght, it unlocks a special command team, if you choose to use that team, no normal bodygaurd team. no idea on if those IC can then be selected as warlord...although i think if farsight is in the army he is auto warlord.

thats based on what ive read from excerpts here. ill be more informed once i get the ipad version.downloaded

 Akaraut wrote:
Ward wrote this supplement? Got to say that he did a pretty good job with the fluff. Well maybe except for the part where farsight does his whole zen meditation/trance thing; that was a little silly. Other than that it's a great read for anyone interested in Farsight.

Pretty good job? you jest?
The "rule" section is HORRID

The "7" are a mix-and-match of wargear for regular units with no focus, logic, or anything unique about them. it would cost the same to build them yourself, but then you will probably wise up and build an actual sane guy, and not the mess they are. (the only one worth mentioning is o'vesa, and only in order to double up your earth caste pilot array and get 4th riptide.)

The traits are horrid, to the point 2 of them got a strictly better version in the BRB (the two reserve related), 1 is outright worhtless (WS5), and another provides a one-shot reroll for a single unit, for the one type of roll tau are good at (shred, reroll wounds, on high S guns....), commonly such abilities are an aura, and reroll something your army is bad at (codex got a reroll to hit, much better. and it effects everyone within 12", not just the warlord's own unit)
The stubborn one is the only that has no direct comparison, but you can get an ethereal to do pretty much the same thing.
The fake PEN is the only one in the whole list worth anything, and even that could have been acquired by main codex, in a reliable fashion, stronger version, and still get another warlord trait, for mere 15 points.

The wargear bounces from one that is questionably too good, to a bunch of others that costs WAY too much, unreliable at best and one might even backfire.
Mirrorcodex? +1 to steal initiative means that will influence 1/12 games. the PE part will, on average, buy you 1 random turn of PE. 50 points? HELL NO.
SFN? 1/6 chance not to work, when it does work 1/3 change to bite you in the ass. 45 points for these odds? no thanks.
Drone? sure, its nice. but its a 35 point upgrade connected to a drone's shaky life. pass.
Fusion blades? a powerful melee weapon, that costs more then an actual assault model, in a codex that avoids CC. I would not take it for half the price.
Talisman? the anti-psyker parts only help when they target you, and best psykers target themselves. the invul is weak. too expensive.
ECPA is the only good one, and considering it covers the riptides biggest flaws, its strong despite the high cost.

And the rules, don't get me even started on how poorly written they are.
We still cant figure out if you need farsight or not for the command team.
Not a clue if riptides take special-issue wargear at the cost of a slot or not (because some units are one way, and some units the other)
Confusion about what happens with SI wargear when you ally regular tau with farsight.

Its a sloppy writing job, and I could have written it clearer with an hour worth of work, and made far better job with the commanders, traits and wargear with one more hour.
Two hours work would have been enough for an amateur like me to write a better set of rules, without all the confusion, and I would have done it for free if GWS asked me.
Instead they pay god know what, for a very, VERY poor work, that resembles more preschool quality then professional work.

The fluff is good, I'd give that. but the rules section is the worst ever written that I have seen in a published work, in any game.
The only reason to use it, is to cherry pick a few good things, pay the tiny tax in bonding knifes, and pretend the rest never happened.

 Morollan wrote:

The only part of Mike's post on that blog that I disagree with is that Farsight is part of the Commander Team. The rest of his points are all fine and in fact if you remove that assumption you arrive precisely at my view of the rule, ie that you must take Farsight if you want to take the Commander Team and that it replaces his normal bodyguard. But with your interpretation you need to remove words to get it to fit. I've removed the superfluous words from the rules (shown in red) to get to your interpretation.

When choosing a Farsight Enclaves Army, you have access to a special unit called Farsight's Commander Team. If you choose to take this unit, Commander Farsight does not allow you to take an XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team as normal; he has the Commander Team instead. This special unit is an HQ choice that does not take up a Force Organisation Slot and consists of up to seven other battlesuits chosen from the Eight listed below.

Anyway, I think I'm done with this. it's going to need a FAQ and in the meantime I will be erring on the side of caution and not trying to field the Commander Team without Farsight.

I don't expect a reply, but I think you're being pretty unfair here. I don't need those words to disappear. "As normal..." is pretty naturally read as a clarification which is just reinforcing that, absent this rule, Farsight would be able to take a Crisis Bodyguard Team when you've already chosen to take a Commander Team. My reading absolutely requires the word "other", so I have no idea where you're coming from on that one. Without the word "other", Farsight could be one of the seven battlesuits in the Commander Team.

 BoomWolf wrote:
The fluff is good, I'd give that. but the rules section is the worst ever written that I have seen in a published work, in any game.
The only reason to use it, is to cherry pick a few good things, pay the tiny tax in bonding knifes, and pretend the rest never happened.

So, do you think "suits as troops" is a good enough reason to use it? Because that's about the only thing I find at all interesting from any of this. I also wouldn't mind reading more about Farsight since I like the character, but that's not worth buying the book for alone.

I will use it over the Tau codex for this reason alone:

Farsight Enclave

-Take IC Riptide
-x2 Riptides
-x1 Riptide with Earth Caste Pilot (or all not to sure on that)

Add Tau Allies

-Shadowsun
-x1 Riptide

I now have an army with 5 Riptides