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.

So the Allied detachment on p.122 says that I can't use the same Faction as my primary Faction, in this case Tau and Farsight enclaves. The Farsight codex specifically says that they can ally with Tau as battle brothers. Page 13 talks about basic vs. advanced rules and states that codexes and army lists always trump the rule book.

Can I ally Tau with Farsight and vice versa?

Does the Farsight Enclave specifically state you can take it as an allied detachment to Tau or does it simply state they are Battle Brothers?

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Does the Farsight Enclave specifically state you can take it as an allied detachment to Tau or does it simply state they are Battle Brothers?

It says that a farsight enclaves detachment can ally with a tau empire detachment as battle brothers.

There for you can take another CAD that is Battle Brothers with your first. But not an Allied Detachment.

But that is not allying is it? You're just taking more CAD's? Are they still counted as their own separate detachments?

Each CAD is a separate detachment, hence the name.

If you are told you can ally with COdex Tau, then you can ally with codex Tau

if you take multiple detachments, you are allying, and reference the ally chart to see how they interact with each other.

Allied Detachments are just one type of detachment that specifically have to belong to a different faction. They are not the only way to take allies.

That is Allying.

An Allied detachment is just a core detachment type, a second CAD is how you get the Battle Brothers allies from every single Faction(Dark Eldar with Dark Eldar, Tyranids with Tyranids, etc).

Yoiu can also take 2 CADs with 2 different factions and those to will be allies, example: Eldar and Tau.

So in this example you can have a Tau Empire CAD with both Aun'Va and Shadowsun, then a CAD of Farsight Enclaves with Farsight and the 8(choosing Farsight as the Warlord) without breaking any rules.

As Kommissar Kel mentioned:
Ally and Allied Detachment are two different terminologies.

Permission to Ally with one-self was a requirement of supplements within 6th edition, as there was no ally matrix designed to allow 'self alliance.' Many supplements, and one Codex, therefore contained Rules in order to inform us how to get around this lack of information. These Rules often informed us that such an alliance is possible as long as X and Y are followed, and that they would be considered Battle Brothers in those situations. This is an obsolete Rule within 7th edition, because every Faction already has permission to ally with itself so it does something the Army already has permission to do.

Though, the real question is:
What happens if we include units from a Supplement within the same Detachment as Units from the mother codex?

JinxDragon wrote:
Though, the real question is:
What happens if we include units from a Supplement within the same Detachment as Units from the mother codex?

you break the rules, because the supplements come with Relics and Warlord Traits their mother codexes cannot have access.

Vector Strike,
I disagree, it is easy to simply select Units which do not have access to Illegal war-gear and to ensure their Warlord is a model from the 'Correct Detachment.'

For Example: Nothing prevents me from fielding Farsight Enclave Kroot as Troops in a Tau Empire Detachment, it is pointless which supplement the Kroot comes from but it is legal to use them in this way. The Kroot in question are not being fielded with any 'illegal Wargear,' they are not even bound to the Far-sight Enclave Restriction in question as they single out Characters. They are not going to be selected as the Warlord in this particular Battle-Forged Army, even if I take a Shaper, as there is going to be a better candidate from the Head-quarter Units. No Restrictions that I know of have been broken, it meets all the requirement to be included in a single Detachment along side Tau Empire forces, so nothing is preventing it from being a legal Army.

The real question comes from how we determine if that is a Tau Empire Detachment or not....

You may freely include units from any of the supplements in the same CA detachment.

A single CAD can have units from Chaos SM, Crimson Slaughter, and Black Legion all at the same time.

As far as the BRB is concerned, the same can happen with Tau and Farsight Enclave units.
The supplement itself may impose additional restrictions, but that is a different issue.

Don't the Supplements straight up say that an army cannot use more than one Supplement?

Meaning you could use CS or BL but not both.

From the Black Legion supplement:
Note that you can only use the options from one codex supplement when choosing a detachment.

The Crimson Slaughter supplement only talks about a Crimson Slaughter detachment, so it is a bit more vague.

 Hansisaf wrote:
From the Black Legion supplement:
Note that you can only use the options from one codex supplement when choosing a detachment.

The Crimson Slaughter supplement only talks about a Crimson Slaughter detachment, so it is a bit more vague.

Yeah I found that last night, and then posted it in a different thread thinking it was this one. I was sleepy.

JinxDragon wrote:
Vector Strike,
I disagree, it is easy to simply select Units which do not have access to Illegal war-gear and to ensure their Warlord is a model from the 'Correct Detachment.'

For Example: Nothing prevents me from fielding Farsight Enclave Kroot as Troops in a Tau Empire Detachment, it is pointless which supplement the Kroot comes from but it is legal to use them in this way. The Kroot in question are not being fielded with any 'illegal Wargear,' they are not even bound to the Far-sight Enclave Restriction in question as they single out Characters. They are not going to be selected as the Warlord in this particular Battle-Forged Army, even if I take a Shaper, as there is going to be a better candidate from the Head-quarter Units. No Restrictions that I know of have been broken, it meets all the requirement to be included in a single Detachment along side Tau Empire forces, so nothing is preventing it from being a legal Army.

The real question comes from how we determine if that is a Tau Empire Detachment or not....

Ok, with this line of thinking I assume you'd only be able to roll on Farsight Warlord table as well, right?

So what's the point of mixing both in one CAD? The best benefits TE brings are exactly its Warlord Traits and Signature Systems.
It looks to me like an unwise "FOC saving". Saving 2 troops and 1 HQ makes you miss TE good stuff.
Fire Warriors/Kroot are good troops (when supported) and TE HQ options are quite good.

If I can mix Codex and Supplement when picking a detachment, I would be able to take the following

HQ
Tau Empire Buff Commander (TE Relics)
Aun'va (TE, but restricted from use in a FE detachment)

Troops
Crisis Suits (Farsight Enclaves)
Crisis Suits (Farsight Enclaves)

This let's me mix the benefits of both codex and supplement without taking any of the downsides.

 Kriswall wrote:
If I can mix Codex and Supplement when picking a detachment, I would be able to take the following

HQ
Tau Empire Buff Commander (TE Relics)
Aun'va (TE, but restricted from use in a FE detachment)

Troops
Crisis Suits (Farsight Enclaves)
Crisis Suits (Farsight Enclaves)

This let's me mix the benefits of both codex and supplement without taking any of the downsides.

So how would you pick Aun'va if he's in, technically a Farsight detachment (that is, at the same time, a Tau Empire detachment)?
And Farsight's wording about SigSys are very clear that you cannot use TE's in a Farsight detachment - which the one we're using is (as, at the same time, a Tau Empire detachment). It's too messy to work around it...

I completely agree. But the rules...

A. Don't seem to prevent me from taking TE and FE in the same detachment.
B. Are pretty clear that a detachment made of FE models is a Tau Empire Detachment.

The rules don't seem to support Farsight Enclaves Detachment being a thing... which totally breaks a lot of things.

I'm taking Aun'va in a TE detachment and TE relics in a TE detachment.

Vector Strike,
Being legal and being useful are two completely different things.

While the lack of a 'broken' outcome is the only thing stopping this being a serious problem it might not always be the case. We simply do not know what 'Detachments' or 'Supplements' will exist in the future and, sadly, it is highly probable that the Authors may pen a Detachment or Supplement book which could allow for some very broken combinations. Should mixing and matching not be addressed by that point in time we might have to readdress this situation with much more broken and disturbing results. Personally, I am wondering what prevents us from just stating "Its Both!" as that would indeed be broken....

 Kriswall wrote:
I completely agree. But the rules...

A. Don't seem to prevent me from taking TE and FE in the same detachment.
B. Are pretty clear that a detachment made of FE models is a Tau Empire Detachment.

The rules don't seem to support Farsight Enclaves Detachment being a thing... which totally breaks a lot of things.

I'm taking Aun'va in a TE detachment and TE relics in a TE detachment.

The FAQ makes FE detachment a thing. You can only have any of the benefits(Crisis teams as troops, FE support systems, Ork hunters, et al) for FE in a FE detachment.

You can have aun'va in a TE detachment all you want, but you cannot mix FE units with it.

As far as us not technically "Knowing" what an FE Detachment is; 7th edition was clearly written with the phrase "don't be a donkey" in mind. 7th edition is not a game for tournaments(even though we have them and GW runs some), it is a game to have fun with(proof found with the new unbound armies and fun, fluffy shenanigans that you can field).

Kel,
While I do agree with your post in spirit, I have to disagree with it from experience.

Right now there is no benefits from trying to field a 'mixed Detachment,' only confusion, so people will be more then willing to avoid it. That will change however, as Game Workshop will be releasing more Detachment datasheets and Supplements within the near future. I can not trust some combination of Detachment, mother Codex and Supplement shenanigans won't start to occur in the long run. The moment that happens the question of 'How do we know which Detachment is which?' will become very important in order to stop 'those ******* guys' whom always see such things as loopholes to abuse. If we identify a possible loophole early enough, maybe we can find a way to close it before it becomes a problem.

I think you may have missed the point of my post.

It was that we are given a distinction between a FE detachment and a TE Detachment.

So while you choose units from TE codex in a FE detachment; it is not a mixed detachment, that is simply how you select units for a FE detachment

We do not have a direct FAQ statement that Crimson Slaughter is its own detachment, but we can figure that out for ourselves(same goes for Black legion, which itself has all the rules referring to "a Black Legion Detachment"). I do not actually have the Crimson Slaughter Supplement, but i have a strong feeling it also refers to its rules as in a crimson slaughter detachment.

The other point of my post is that we should not Need GW to hold our hands, if rules refer to a "X-Detachment", we know what that means, it is a detachment that is drawn entirely from those rules(So no Black Mace in a Black legion detachment, if you are choosing a Daemon Prince in a BL detachment it uses the BL relics or artifacts or whatever). The rules that a supplement is from the same faction as its parent codex has less to do with taking the Parent and then trying to take units or special rules from the supplement, and more the other way around: you cannot field a supplement detachment without taking units from the parent Codex. Also you cannot take a Primary detachment of Supplement or Parent and then try to take an Allied detachment of the the other.

Kel,
While I do agree with you in spirit, this is entirely a problem that we could so easily side step and avoid, I have to point out that we are communicating over a Rule debate Forum. There are two major Rules which are never overly discussed on a Forum board because they don't have much place in Rule debates, they are purely Table Top applications. The first is the ability to simply refuse to play any opponent should they try and Field something you disagree with in a friendly game. The second is that any Tournament Organizers are the final word at their events. Those two elements are far more powerful then any Rule loophole debate we have here, and something a great deal of players should consider if they want to make a 'Mixed Detachment' list more then the legality on it, which is why I agree with you in spirit because we should all be more then able to police ourselves.

However, the matter of that legality is something Forums like these ones focus on greatly and in a way that puts the Written Rules above someones dislike of the outcome. When it comes to legal Detachments there are only two things we have to consider, the Force Organization Charts and any Restrictions written into the Detachment itself. In the situation of the default Detachment type, Combined Arms, the Restriction is a simple 'Units must belong to the same Faction,' nothing mentioning the same Codex or Supplement like the Authors should of stated. That is the core of the problem, as we all know Supplements and their mother Codex are the same Faction.

That leaves one question:
If I mix a detachment of Farsight Enclave Units, none carrying any illegal wargear or the likes, into a Tau Empire Detachment have I done anything illegal?

JinxDragon wrote:
That leaves one question:
If I mix a detachment of Farsight Enclave Units, none carrying any illegal wargear or the likes, into a Tau Empire Detachment have I done anything illegal?

Yes, you have.

Per the FAQ you only get Crisis suits as Troops if they are in a FE detachment.

Of course the only difference between a FE and a TE detachment is the signature systems(and the bonus rules) and you cannot have shadowsun or aun'va.

So as long as you choose all your signature systems from FE, and do not take shadowsun or aun'va, you have a FE detachment and can choose crisis suits as troops along with giving your riptide signature systems(and you have to bond all your units).

Then it is a good thing I made no mention of Crisis Suits filling Troop slots, isn't it?

The practicality is not at issue, the legality of it is, so I will ask again:
If I mix a detachment of Farsight Enclave Units, while ensuring I do not violate any Detachment specific Restrictions, into a Tau Empire Detachment have I broken any Rule?

TE and FE are same faction. CADs are by faction. Unless you have FAQ permission to ally within a faction, you cannot. Since 7th ed doesn't do codex FOCs or follow supplement rules from 6th, none of that matters.

Therefore, you buy (points wise) each FE unit, meeting it's requirements and options and dropping it into your FACTION CAD (no more FOCs). The FE units fill up their slots. You can also add TE units and have them also fill up slots in the same CAD, as long as you meet their requirements and use their codex options.

You can't ally TE and FE unless you are given FAQ or GRB (gray rule book?) permission. You can, however, make a full TE CAD and a full FE CAD (basically a 6th ed double FOC).

There is no advanced vs basic here as the matrix the supplement refers to (6th ed FOCs and allies) doesn't even exist. So it's rules are irrelevant.

Well you don't have any FE units at that point.
You just have TE units.

You do not gain any of the FE rules without the units being in an FE detachment.

It also works in reverse, If you have an FE detachment all your units within that detachment follow the FE special rules and signature systems.

This is true of every single supplement. It is not a rule in the BRB, it is a rule found in, or FAQ'd into, every supplement.

Kel,
The concept of Units belonging to the Detachment they where purchased for, instead of belonging to the Codex or Supplement they where purchased from, is a very interesting line of thought. I will think on it a little bit, maybe poke at the books sometime when I am better able, and see what turns up. I can already think of one or two places where this concept might find Rule Support and if I can get a sentence or two to quote... well, then we will have an answer that closes what could become a broken loophole, if the Authors are not careful.

 Kommissar Kel wrote:
Well you don't have any FE units at that point.
You just have TE units.
You do not gain any of the FE rules without the units being in an FE detachment.
.

Not challenging, genuinely curious. Where are you getting this from, and what relevance would the distinction make?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I'll leave this here.

www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/06/11/writing-a-40k-list-for-7th-ed-40k-and-the-bao-2014/