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.

Just listening to the recent Frontline podcast and ruling for the BAO. It seems a little crazy to me, but I wanted to see what other people think. I'm not attending the BAO, but a lot of the big tournament rulings have the potential to affect other tournaments worldwide, so interesting to discuss.

Their idea is the, since a Detachment must be from one Faction, but supplements are part of the parent Faction, then (for example) a CSM Combined Arms detachment could include one Crimson Slaughter Lord with CS weapons, one regular Chaos Lord, or any mix of units from the Faction, regardless of source.

1 Combined Arms Detachment (C.A.D.) which can be comprised of a single faction, chosen from any of those shown in the BRB (pg.118). This detachment can be drawn from multiple sources, such as a codex, supplement of the parent codex, data slate of the parent codex or Forge World unit of the parent codex. Note, unlike in the past, we are not allowing Forge World army lists this year as many of them have not yet been updated for 7th edition.
For example, you could take Tau as your primary faction and in the confines of your Combined Arms Detachment you could have units from the Tau Codex, Farsight Supplement, a Tau data slate and Tau Forge World units, but must abide by the limits of a single Force Organization Chart (ie. no more than 2 H.Q., 3 Elites, etc.).
In the case of a Forge World unit having a profile in a Forge World book and Codex or Codex Supplement, the rules in the Codex or Codex Supplement are always used.
- See more at: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/community/bao-tournament-format/#sthash.skEtDVn7.dpuf

While I agree that this is how it works for the purposes of Additive Dataslates (data slates that add a choice to your Codex rather than add a new Formation Detachment), and Forge World units, it seems pretty clear that supplements are intended to be their own sub-Faction. It also seems that allowing this would cause a lot of rules issues.

For example. The CS supplement states that all models 'in a Crimson Slaughter detachment' get Fear. In fact, it repeatedly references 'Crimson Slaughter detachments'. So, who gets fear? If I have a CSM detachment with a Lord from CSM and a Lord from CS, only my CS Lord has Fear? Well, what happens to the regular Chaos Marines in that detachment? Do they get fear? Are they allowed to take VotLW? Do I pick for each unit? Picking for each unit seems incredibly abusive. "This squad of CSM have Fear, but this squad have VotLW. These possessed are CS Troops, but these possessed are regular Elites." etc etc

Anyway, what does the Hive Mind think?

I've run I to this same problem with my Farsight Enclave.

Looks like both BAO and NOVA are on the same page on this. In a single CAD with AD setup it would be impossible to Ally your supplement, and in the case of FE impossible to draw anything unique from each book.

As it's been explained to me, you can freely mix and match so long as the unit is from one or the other. These are 6th edition Supplements and hold overs in language, whereas the 7th CAD is only Faction dependent. We have no "Farsight Enclaves Detachment" therefore the only meaning left to us is the units in a Codex: Tau Empire CAD or AD choosen from the Farsight Enclaves Supplement. Now, if it is Errataed and we are given the option to take a Farsight Enclaves Detachment and it is spelled out for us in FOC with Restrictions and command Benefits, then that would be different. It has some abuse as you can avoid some of the taxes of 6th by being forced to Ally with yourself, but now you share a FOC and cannot self Ally which is viewed as better. So a CAD + AD is limited to 6 Objective Secured instead of 8, Limited to 2 Farseers instead of 3, 3 Wraithknights instead of 4, etc.

IE for a simple example

TE: BuffCommander

FE: Troop Crisis(3man with Bonding)
FE: Troop Crisis
TE: Firewarriors(No Bonding Required)

FE: ECPA Riptide

That is how it has been explained to me. I too am Leary about the wording as much of it was just changed to "a Farsight enclaves Detachment" when we have no Detachment rules. Even so being allowed to take a CAD Faction Codex Tau Empire has no such limitations. Any limitations or benefits imposed or granted by the Supplement only refer to units chooses from the Supplement within the CAD, not the entire CAD.

Cross posting my response to this from NOVA Open thread:

Our read currently aligns with the rulebook (bold/underlines done to bring attention to key points):

Combined Arms Detachment
Restrictions
All units chosen must have the same Faction (or have no Faction).

and

FACTIONS
All units belong to one of the many Factions that are fighting in the 41st Millennium. This will often be represented on the unit’s Army List Entry with a symbol, the key for which can be found to the right. A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army, but is especially relevant to Detachments because many state that you can only include units of a particular Faction. Factions are also used when including Allies, and some special rules will apply only to specific Factions. Note that Fortifications are an exception in that, unless otherwise stated on their datasheet, they do not have a Faction.
In the case of older publications, the Faction of all the units described in a codex is the same as the codex’s title. In the case of codex supplements, the Faction of all the units described in that publication is the same as the codex it is a supplement of.

ARMY LIST ENTRIES IN DIFFERENT PUBLICATIONS
There are a few units whose Army List Entries are presented in more than one Games Workshop publication. Daemon Princes, for example, are presented in both Codex: Chaos Daemons and Codex: Chaos Space Marines. In these instances, the unit’s Faction is determined by whichever codex it was chosen from. Be sure to keep track of which is which if you decide to take one from more than one source.

So, basically, "codex" is completely irrelevant to "detachment." Faction is what's relevant to determining what can or can't go into a detachment (at least with regard to Combined Arms Detachments and Allied Detachments).

This explains why it's completely RAW and clearly intended to be able to mix and match Farsight selections in with Tau Empire selections, so long as you continue to follow the letter of the rules as well (i.e., you cannot have any FE selections inside your Tau Combined Arms Detachment if you do not have a 3-model troop crisis unit with bonding knives, nor can you put Tau Empire signature systems on a model that has selected Farsight Enclaves signature systems, nor can you include Aun'va or Shadowsun in a detachment that includes Farsight Enclaves selections, etc.).

It is important to note that this is one of the more subtle changes to 7th edition, but isn't a "fuzzy" one in terms of word choice and rules. You could try to make the argument that it's not intended, but the only support for that argument would be that it's different from how things used to be, which is certainly true for much of the edition.

You might want to take BAO out of the header ... bit of a target on one TO just tryin' to do the best he can. Hell, it's partly my fault for bringing it up in discussions (but would also not like it to be all about NOVA threadwise either).

Yeah, I think that's more complex, more confusing, and open to more abuse than just saying 'you can't ally with your own Faction'. It seems that you can now Pick'n'mix all the advantages and ignore any of the disadvantages! So...

BL - Abbadon
CS - Chaos Character

BL - Possessed (Codex mutations)
CS - Chosen (as Elites, with Fear, upgraded to Ravagers)

BL - Chosen (identical models, but this time as Troops)
CS - Possessed (this time with the CS Mutations, as Troops)
CS - Cultists (with Fear, because why not?)
BL - Cultists (without)

BL - Havocs (with VotLW for Preferred Enemy)

Not confusing to play against at all!!!

 ArbitorIan wrote:
Yeah, I think that's more complex, more confusing, and open to more abuse than just saying 'you can't ally with your own Faction'.

It seems that you can now Pick'n'mix all the advantages and ignore any of the disadvantages! But those disadvantages are there to balance out the advantages. So...

BL - Abbadon
CS - Chaos Character

BL - Possessed (Codex mutations)
CS - Chosen (as Elites, with Fear, upgraded to Ravagers)

BL - Chosen (identical models, but this time as Troops)
CS - Possessed (this time with the CS Mutations, as Troops)
CS - Cultists (with Fear, because why not?)
BL - Cultists (without)

BL - Havocs (with VotLW for Preferred Enemy)

Not confusing to play against at all!!!

I'm sure someone can, and will, come up with a better list than this, but yeah...

I'm not sure it's any more abuseable than it was; remember, Farsight Enclaves were previously able to ally with Tau Empire, and now cannot. The same goes for any others that had this situation. Also, the list you posted isn't especially good or confusing, and under tournament rules would need to be painted and modeled correctly to achieve clarity for their opponents or risk models being removed from play (a similar concern that daemon summoning players are going to have to address).

Interesting points about the painting rules - this is going to be fun.

I'm sure someone can come up with a better/more abusive list than this. The Farsight one is a little more abusive, since the main disadvantage is the limits on equipment and certain troops (which are now removed). And I imagine every single Crisis suit in every Tau army will now be Troops, since there's no reason not to (unless you've somehow maxed out your troops already).

Rules-wise, the supplements themselves refer to 'The X Detachment' many many times, contrasting this with 'The (parent] Detachment'. In the BL supplement, it clearly states that you can only use the options from one supplement when picking a detachment. It seems pretty clear from the written rules that units from multiple supplements are not intended to be used in the same detachment. While I agree that in the case of Farsight this was something that was allowed before, having multiple different supplements in the same detachment is new?

Also, by these rules, could I take Cypher's Fallen Champions in my CSM army without having to take Cypher OR his Formation Detachment, since they're a unit that is part of the same Faction?


.

MVBrandt wrote:

This explains why it's completely RAW and clearly intended to be able to mix and match Farsight selections in with Tau Empire selections, so long as you continue to follow the letter of the rules as well (i.e., you cannot have any FE selections inside your Tau Combined Arms Detachment if you do not have a 3-model troop crisis unit with bonding knives, nor can you put Tau Empire signature systems on a model that has selected Farsight Enclaves signature systems, nor can you include Aun'va or Shadowsun in a detachment that includes Farsight Enclaves selections, etc.).

It is important to note that this is one of the more subtle changes to 7th edition, but isn't a "fuzzy" one in terms of word choice and rules. You could try to make the argument that it's not intended, but the only support for that argument would be that it's different from how things used to be, which is certainly true for much of the edition.

Here you said, "nor can you include Aun'Va or Shadowsun in a detachment that includes Farsight Enclave Selection." Which is derived from the FAQ "A Farsight Enclaves Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." Couldn't you simply take Shadowsun from TE and bypass such restrictions? If not, how does this differ from Signature Systems?

Signature Systems(Bolded FAQ changes)
“Any character in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment that may select Signature Systems may not select from those listed in Codex: Tau Empire, but may instead select from the Signature Systems of the Farsight Enclaves, at the points cost shown. Note that XV104 Riptides in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment may select items from the Signature Systems of the Farsight Enclaves.”

Or...

Battlesuit Spearhead
“In a Farsight Enclaves Detachment, all XV8 Crisis Teams are troops choices instead of elites choices. However, when choosing a Farsight Enclaves Detachment, you must include at least one XV8 Crisis Team consisting of three models (not including Drones).”


I see how you are requiring a three man crisis Squad with Bonding Knives to select other units from FE, but where does the Farsight enclaves Detachment line end. Can't Shadowsun be selected from Tau Empire just a Commander can be selected from Tau Empire, taking Tau Empire Signature Systems, and avoiding the Farsight Enclaves Detachment restrictions. Obviously, you cannot take a Commander with Signature Systems from both.

 Zagman wrote:

“Any character in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment that may select Signature Systems may not select from those listed in Codex: Tau Empire, but may instead select from the Signature Systems of the Farsight Enclaves, at the points cost shown. Note that XV104 Riptides in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment may select items from the Signature Systems of the Farsight Enclaves.”

Surely, since there is no such thing as a 'Farsight Enclaves Detachment' by these rules (only a CAD that happens to include units taken from the Farsight supplement), then that rule doesn't apply even to a Commander selected from the Farsight book. So, either anyone can take a mix of regular Tau codex and Farsight wargear or nobody can ever take Farsight war gear (since there's no such thing as a Farsight Detachment to belong to).

Actually, we'd need a (non-RAW) ruling on what a 'X SUPPLEMENT Detachment' is - a detachment that includes entirely units from one supplement, or a detachment that contains at least one unit from a supplement?

 Zagman wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

This explains why it's completely RAW and clearly intended to be able to mix and match Farsight selections in with Tau Empire selections, so long as you continue to follow the letter of the rules as well (i.e., you cannot have any FE selections inside your Tau Combined Arms Detachment if you do not have a 3-model troop crisis unit with bonding knives, nor can you put Tau Empire signature systems on a model that has selected Farsight Enclaves signature systems, nor can you include Aun'va or Shadowsun in a detachment that includes Farsight Enclaves selections, etc.).

It is important to note that this is one of the more subtle changes to 7th edition, but isn't a "fuzzy" one in terms of word choice and rules. You could try to make the argument that it's not intended, but the only support for that argument would be that it's different from how things used to be, which is certainly true for much of the edition.

Here you said, "nor can you include Aun'Va or Shadowsun in a detachment that includes Farsight Enclave Selection." Which is derived from the FAQ "A Farsight Enclaves Detachment cannot include Aun'Va or Commander Shadowsun." Couldn't you simply take Shadowsun from TE and bypass such restrictions? If not, how does this differ from Signature Systems?

Signature Systems(Bolded FAQ changes)
“Any character in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment that may select Signature Systems may not select from those listed in Codex: Tau Empire, but may instead select from the Signature Systems of the Farsight Enclaves, at the points cost shown. Note that XV104 Riptides in a Farsight Enclaves Detachment may select items from the Signature Systems of the Farsight Enclaves.”

Or...

Battlesuit Spearhead
“In a Farsight Enclaves Detachment, all XV8 Crisis Teams are troops choices instead of elites choices. However, when choosing a Farsight Enclaves Detachment, you must include at least one XV8 Crisis Team consisting of three models (not including Drones).”


I see how you are requiring a three man crisis Squad with Bonding Knives to select other units from FE, but where does the Farsight enclaves Detachment line end. Can't Shadowsun be selected from Tau Empire just a Commander can be selected from Tau Empire, taking Tau Empire Signature Systems, and avoiding the Farsight Enclaves Detachment restrictions. Obviously, you cannot take a Commander with Signature Systems from both.

I guess I'm not seeing how these are unclear. A Farsight Enclaves Detachment is also a Tau Detachment (and not vice versa). If your Crisis Commander is a Farsight Enclaves commander, he cannot have any non-FE Signature Systems. If your Detachment includes units from FE, it is a FE detachment (and may also be a Tau detachment simultaneously, which is fine / not prohibited), and thus cannot have Shadowsun or Aun'va. You aren't allying here with different detachments - it's one shared detachment by a sole faction, so it cannot violate any of the restrictions placed on the sub-factions / supplements / whatevers within it. This may in some cases make certain inclusions illegal by virtue of other inclusions (i.e., you chose to take Crisis Troops in your detachment and followed the other requirements, i.e. a 3-man unit, so you cannot legally select Aun'va and Shadowsun, b/c then all your crisis Troops / other FE inclusions would be illegal).

As far as Ian - doesn't the main rulebook quoted above state that older/previous publication supplements are now considered part of their parent Faction? Also, to the one that slipped in ahead of this one, why can a Tau Detachment not be both a Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves detachment as well? I guess I'm confused as to where there's an issue // where the rules are unclear?

Edit:
Also, previously, you could do things like a fourth riptide, shadow Sun anyway, etc via allied detachment, and now can't. So seems actually less abusive.

@MVBrandt

We are reading this almost entirely the same, I was reading "cannot include" as referring to the Farsight Enclaves Detachment, noth the entire CAD. And I was reading the detachment exclusion to prohibit Signature Systems, etc.

I agree on how you Separate Tau Empire portion from the Farsight Enclaves detachment from each other within on CAD as they are a single faction.

,y problem was rectifying where Farsight Enclaves detachment ended and the Tau Empire Detachment started within the CAD a Faction Tau Empire.

Thank you. I generally try to read things more restrictive as to not be caught in the wrong if challenged in a tournament.

 Zagman wrote:
@MVBrandt

We are reading this almost entirely the same, I was reading "cannot include" as referring to the Farsight Enclaves Detachment, noth the entire CAD. And I was reading the detachment exclusion to prohibit Signature Systems, etc.

I agree on how you Separate Tau Empire portion from the Farsight Enclaves detachment from each other within on CAD as they are a single faction.

,y problem was rectifying where Farsight Enclaves detachment ended and the Tau Empire Detachment started within the CAD a Faction Tau Empire.

Thank you. I generally try to read things more restrictive as to not be caught in the wrong if challenged in a tournament.

Makes sense. I would read it by unit. If you select within detachment from multiple sources, your painting/modeling/list must make differentiation clear and easy for your opponent. On your army list, where did model come from?

IE:
Farsight Enclaves Crisis Commander
Tau Empire Crisis Commander

Yada

MVBrandt wrote:
If your Detachment includes units from FE, it is a FE detachment (and may also be a Tau detachment simultaneously, which is fine / not prohibited)

So, as soon as you select one unit, it's a 'Farsight Detachment' and MUST include one Crisis Team? Also, by the supplement, 'any character in the army' cannot select Tau Signature Systems (even if they're not taken from the 'Farsight' part)

EDIT - it seems, in this reading, that we're replacing all references to 'Farsight Detachment' and 'the whole army' with 'models in the detachment which are chosen from this Supplement'?

MVBrandt wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
@MVBrandt

We are reading this almost entirely the same, I was reading "cannot include" as referring to the Farsight Enclaves Detachment, noth the entire CAD. And I was reading the detachment exclusion to prohibit Signature Systems, etc.

I agree on how you Separate Tau Empire portion from the Farsight Enclaves detachment from each other within on CAD as they are a single faction.

,y problem was rectifying where Farsight Enclaves detachment ended and the Tau Empire Detachment started within the CAD a Faction Tau Empire.

Thank you. I generally try to read things more restrictive as to not be caught in the wrong if challenged in a tournament.

Makes sense. I would read it by unit. If you select within detachment from multiple sources, your painting/modeling/list must make differentiation clear and easy for your opponent. On your army list, where did model come from?

IE:
Farsight Enclaves Crisis Commander
Tau Empire Crisis Commander

Yada

Exactly, and it would only be a TE Commander, the rest would be FE.


Now, just need to find someone to share hotel expenses with at NOVA and I'll probably go....

 Zagman wrote:

MVBrandt wrote:

 Zagman wrote:
@MVBrandt

We are reading this almost entirely the same, I was reading "cannot include" as referring to the Farsight Enclaves Detachment, noth the entire CAD. And I was reading the detachment exclusion to prohibit Signature Systems, etc.

I agree on how you Separate Tau Empire portion from the Farsight Enclaves detachment from each other within on CAD as they are a single faction.

,y problem was rectifying where Farsight Enclaves detachment ended and the Tau Empire Detachment started within the CAD a Faction Tau Empire.

Thank you. I generally try to read things more restrictive as to not be caught in the wrong if challenged in a tournament.

Makes sense. I would read it by unit. If you select within detachment from multiple sources, your painting/modeling/list must make differentiation clear and easy for your opponent. On your army list, where did model come from?

IE:
Farsight Enclaves Crisis Commander
Tau Empire Crisis Commander

Yada

Exactly, and it would only be a TE Commander, the rest would be FE.


Now, just need to find someone to share hotel expenses with at NOVA and I'll probably go....

Already over two hundred people registered for 40k events alone. Should be findable.

It seems clear to me that the Battle Forged way to play Supplements, or any type of list building in general, is written in a manner that does not make it crystal clear in a bullet pointed format but it is covered. It also appears that the push toward a single CAD is blurring the view of how a detachment works, how each codex represents itself in an army list and how factions are used. We are still waiting for official FAQs for some of the Supplements but the Iyanden and Farsight FAQs steer us in the right direction with the amendments of treating "army" as "detachment".

Here is an example of a Battle Forged list with no restrictions that could come in around 1850 points:

Farsight Enclaves - Primary Combined Arms Detachment #1 (as per the FAQ, the special rules for FE units and list building only apply here)

HQ - Commander Farsight
TROOPS - XV8 Crisis Team
TROOPS - XV8 Crisis Team
FORTIFICATION - Aegis Defense Line (note that Fortifications have NO Faction)

Tau Empire - Primary Combined Arms Detachment #2 (note that the Factions are similar across all Primary Detachments)

HQ - Cadre Fireblade
TROOPS - Fire Warrior Team with Devilfish
TROOPS - Kroot Carnivore Squad
FAST ATTACK - Barracuda Air Superiority Fighter
LORD OF WAR - Tiger Shark AX-1-0 - Primary Combined Arms Detachment #2 (this is another example of where the Faction restriction plays a part)

Tau Firebase Support Cadre - Primary Combined Arms Detachment #3 (Formations are the same Faction of the parent codex and are a separate Detachment. As per the Formation rules in the Dataslate, the Special Rules only apply to these models)

FORMATION - XV104 Riptide
FORMATION - XV88 Broadside Team
FORMATION - XV88 Broadside Team

The army list above properly represents how a Battle Forged army is made now and also displays how easy it is to have numerous rules sources for one army...

Tau Empire Codex (Print / iBook / eBook)
Tau Empire FAQ (BL Download)
Farsight Enclaves Supplement (Print / iBook / eBook)
Farsight Enclaves FAQ (BL Download)
Stronghold Assault Supplement (Print / iBook / eBook)
Stronghold Assault FAQ (BL Download)
Escalation Supplement (Print / iBook / eBook) (not really needed as a player since the LOW is from Forge World, the changes in 7e cover the need for this book and the special rules apply to Altar or War missions or Gauntlet Challenge)
Escalation FAQ (BL Download)
Forge World - Lords of War Choices (FW Download)
Imperial Armour 3, Second Edition (Print)
Tau Firebase Support Cadre Datasheet (iBook / eBook)

My opinion is that we should just play the game as presented for now and not let blogspam scare us into a skewed format. We are not even a month into 7th and there are few attempts to play the game as presented. The interpretations of the new rules, how older books now apply and new FAQs are just as varied as the proposed tournament rules.

I think that the desire to create your own style of playing the game in a tournament setting will wind up slowing down the way everyone can understand and embrace 7th edition. That being said I must state that I fully support of tailoring tournament formats to make it more enjoyable for the players and simplicity for the staff but not at the drastic level that is being presented by some of the big events.

Some simple restrictions, such as No more that 4 Detachments of any kind in an army or No more than 4 rules sources (not including FAQs), would make it easier for players to transition into the new rules system and still trim issues that would slow game play. This would still allow players to learn to play true 7th edition and be able to transition from one event to another without learning a new game system.

A big issue now is that we have tournaments both large and small pushing their own styles to compete with each other over who gets to call their system the new way to play. Whether it is founded on the local play style, total attendees or other reasons - each factor for how an event will be run will be different than any other event. This is why we had so many formats in the past and will continue to see in the future. This has resulted in refinements that were benefits but also conflicting house rules that really did not help. Keeping the changes minimal from one event to another will be a huge benefit to growing the enjoyment of the new edition.

Hey guys,

Yeah, it is confusing for sure at first, but if you work out as you all have done here, it becomes more straightforward.

I wrote an article about it here: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/06/11/writing-a-40k-list-for-7th-ed-40k-and-the-bao-2014/#comment-282696

If you simply say each Codex, Codex Supplement or Forge World Army list is its own detachment and use mutiple CADs it is pretty straightforward, but then you have multiple CADs and all of the issues that brings (6 anni barges, 8 Heralds, etc., etc.). Also, this alters the BRB's definition for what a CAD is, too, as the only restriction placed on a CAD is that all units be of the same Faction.

So, the simple solution we went with is this:

Whoever your Warlord is determines which rule source you are building from. Anything else is added onto this. The BRB says that your Warlord determines your Primary Detachment (BRB pg.117), and so we use that as the baseline from which all other army selection choices come.

So, if you take a Crimson Slaughter Warlord, you have a Crimson Slaughter CAD with all of those rules.

You then add units to CAD either from that rule source or from sources outside of it such as Forge World, Data Slates, Chaos Codex, etc. so long as they are of the same Faction.

It really only feels confusing when you use a supplement. Say you add a Black Legion Character as your Second HQ choice in the Crimson Slaughter CAD example above, then he can use his special BL Chaos Artifacts but the CAD is not subject to BL special rules. Make sense? When you look at it like that, it is pretty straightforward.

To further muddy the waters though, lol, Militarum Tempestus and Legion of the Damned are presented as Factions of their own, but are not listed as Factions in the BRB! We have to guess that they are Supplements of Astra Militarum and Space Marines respectively or invent new Factions for them. It is really weird.

7th ed presents us with these rules issues though, and we have to work through them as a group but it feels like everything is falling into place.

Like I said, I can ignore all this. I'm not a big fan of farsightedness so I don't do that

@Tironum

You make some good points and I see the logic, but, the game is already bleeding players to other games left and right in the tournament scene. I can't tell you how many of our regulars have quit. And, a lot of them say 40K has just gotten too crazy. Allowing unlimited CADs magnifies the bad aspects of the game by allowing more of it.

Imagine playing a game with 6 or even 9 Anni Barges? Or a Daemon list with 8 or 12 Heralds, ect?

That is what will happen and those players that were already struggling with the crazy aspects of 40K may well be pushed away from the game for good.

The fact of the matter is that GW does not cater to tournaments and it shows. We are trying to work with a system that works against us and it is really confusing and difficult to do. Now that all of the rules are basically saying make it up as you please, everyone is going to want different stuff and so there will inevitably be conflict.

I think the best we can do now is to try and give our players what they want and adjustments as we go. That's what we have done and tickets are selling well and everyone is stoked for the BAO so it feels good.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
@HotSauce

Yeah, we're doing exactly what we did in 6th except now you can also blend in supplements which will really only come into play in the HQ slot.

It is actually not much different than what we did at the LVO.

 Reecius wrote:
Hey guys,

Yeah, it is confusing for sure at first, but if you work out as you all have done here, it becomes more straightforward.

I wrote an article about it here: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/06/11/writing-a-40k-list-for-7th-ed-40k-and-the-bao-2014/#comment-282696

If you simply say each Codex, Codex Supplement or Forge World Army list is its own detachment and use mutiple CADs it is pretty straightforward, but then you have multiple CADs and all of the issues that brings (6 anni barges, 8 Heralds, etc., etc.). Also, this alters the BRB's definition for what a CAD is, too, as the only restriction placed on a CAD is that all units be of the same Faction.

So, the simple solution we went with is this:

Whoever your Warlord is determines which rule source you are building from. Anything else is added onto this. The BRB says that your Warlord determines your Primary Detachment (BRB pg.117), and so we use that as the baseline from which all other army selection choices come.

So, if you take a Crimson Slaughter Warlord, you have a Crimson Slaughter CAD with all of those rules.

You then add units to CAD either from that rule source or from sources outside of it such as Forge World, Data Slates, Chaos Codex, etc. so long as they are of the same Faction.

It really only feels confusing when you use a supplement. Say you add a Black Legion Character as your Second HQ choice in the Crimson Slaughter CAD example above, then he can use his special BL Chaos Artifacts but the CAD is not subject to BL special rules. Make sense? When you look at it like that, it is pretty straightforward.

To further muddy the waters though, lol, Militarum Tempestus and Legion of the Damned are presented as Factions of their own, but are not listed as Factions in the BRB! We have to guess that they are Supplements of Astra Militarum and Space Marines respectively or invent new Factions for them. It is really weird.

7th ed presents us with these rules issues though, and we have to work through them as a group but it feels like everything is falling into place.

Hi Reece - this clarifies matters considerably.

So, you take a Crimson Slaughter CAD with a Crimson Slaughter Warlord, then a BL second Lord. The second Lord can use BL rules but the rest of the detachment must use CS rules. Have I got this right? The rest of the detachment can't just declare that they are CS or BL on a unit by unit basis?

Similarly, if you take a Farsight Warlord and a second Tau Commander the whole detachment except the commander counts as Farsight?

While that's much clearer, I still don't see the reason to make it this complicated. It seems that it would have been much simpler to just say 'CADs can't have multiple detachments' - sure, a small change from the Rulebook, but no changes to any if the supplement books (all of which is require lots of exceptions and changes to their text).

Since SM still can't do this, and there isn't a great advantage for people to take mixed CSM suppements, the only real beneficiaries of all this confusion are Tau players who can now take all the benefits of Farsight without any of the drawbacks. I'm aware this was the case in the last edition but we all thought that was pretty low anyway (take Farisight with the drawbacks or don't take it). Seems that instead of elegantly solving a problem/weird occurance by changing a line in the Rulebook, you've rewritten many supplement rules to preserve it, so that one of the most powerful factions in the game doesn't lose a trick.

Well written article. Too bad it makes an awesome little AD illegal as the HQ is selected from TE and the Crisis and Riptide are FE which isn't allowed.

TE: BuffCommander
FE: Suits
FE: ECPA Riptide

But...

an FE Detachment with a 2nd HQ TE: BuffCommander is legal. Now, if firewarriors were taken they couldn't be selected from TE to avoid the Bonding Knife Tax? They would have to be taken as FE and pay the Bonding Knife tax?

 Reecius wrote:


Imagine playing a game with 6 or even 9 Anni Barges? , ect?

How is this any different than playing against 9 Wave Serpents in which 6 of them are objective secured and 3 of them outflank? That's what you can do right now already. The barges won't be objective secured and they will require troop taxes. 6-9 Barges is not a strong argument against multiple CAD's. Not with what can be produced already in 7th in just one CAD.

I can't say I like this ruling. It seems to be RAW, but it really feels like a case of an unintended loophole rather than a deliberate decision. Was it really intended that, as an IG player, I can have a single detachment mix units from the IG codex, two different DKoK lists, Elysian drop troops, armored company, (arguably) the stormtrooper codex, and whatever future supplements GW decides to publish? I can understand taking all of that in an unbound list, but isn't battle-forged supposed to be about playing under tighter restrictions to get your super-scoring bonus? Plus, there's so much more potential for rules issues, and I don't think questions like "do you have to take the mandatory crisis suits if you take a Farsight unit in your Tau list" are anywhere near as settled as some people have claimed.

Also, I think this ruling seriously undermines the justification for banning unbound lists. As an IG player it gives me most of what I would ever want to take in an unbound list, while a DE player gets nothing. I don't think you can consistently rule that some armies get to play unbound in all but name, but others have to follow the 5th edition FOC rules. Either allow unbound for everyone, or fix the rules so that supplements and variant army lists are their own faction for FOC purposes.

 Reecius wrote:
I wrote an article about it here: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/06/11/writing-a-40k-list-for-7th-ed-40k-and-the-bao-2014/#comment-282696

Actually, reading through this has made a few things clearer for me - particularly that the Rulebook and the Supplements actually do make RAW sense as they are! I'm now clear on the relationship between the Supplements and Rulebook, and how you've changed things. However, I'm not sure the BAO rules in this article make clear the changes you've made.

I think the confusing thing is that, in CAD point 5 of the article, the examples seem to directly contradict the opening statement. This is because the rules in Supplements are usually treated as what used to be called 'Army-wide Special Rules' and should probably now be called 'Detachment-wide Special Rules' (DWSRs). The idea of a 'Farsight Commander' as opposed to a 'Tau Empire Commander' isn't helpful. They're not different units, but the same unit in a detachment with different DWSRs. Only the Detachment has the rules, not the units.

So - taken from - http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/06/11/writing-a-40k-list-for-7th-ed-40k-and-the-bao-2014/#comment-282696

Your Warlord determines your Primary Detachment. Further, for any Faction wide rules use your Primary Detachment to determine which, if any, are in effect. Your Warlord also determines if you gain access to any source specific units, warlord traits or special wargear, etc. If more than one HQ choice has these type of rules, only the Warlord’s are used.

Fantastic. Simple. So, I take a CSM CAD with a Black Legion Warlord. The Detachment then becomes a Black Legion Detachment, and uses the DWSRs for Black Legion in addition to the regular CSM ones, as follows

- All units must be VotLW
- Chosen are Troops
- You can take the Bringers of Despair unit
- Any character in the Black Legion detachment must take the Artefacts from the Black Legion book, not the CSM one.

Note that the all of these, including the last one, are DWSRs that apply to everyone in the detachment (as you outline above, and as all the Supplements confirm). They are not rules that only apply to individual models. Characters in the detachment only get access to that last rule (BL Artefacts) if the Warlord is Black Legion.

Can I take a second non-Warlord 'Crimson Slaughter Lord'. Well, no - there's no such thing. You can take a second Chaos Lord, but the only way he'll get access to the DWSRs in the Crimson Slaughter book (particularly the one that lets him take CS Artefacts) if the Warlord is from Crimson Slaughter. (Also, by RAW he's have to take VotLW, which he can't do).

Can I take Crimson Slaughter Possessed as Troops? No, for the same reason. There's no such unit as 'Crimson Slaughter Possessed', just a DWSR that you only get if your Warlord is Crimson Slaughter. Easy.

This reading breaks no rules in the new 7th Edition Codex (all units are still from the same faction), and breaks no rules in any of the Supplements, and abides by your opening statement. It's simple, clear, RAW, and seems to also be RAI. The only slight change is that you've confirmed that the Warlord determines if any Supplement is being used.

But then

Example: If you were to take a Black Legion Supplement Chaos Space Marine HQ as your Warlord you would be playing a Chaos Space Marines Faction CAD. All of your units that can take Veterans of the Long War must do so, and Chosen would be troops as usual for the Black Legion. You would also get access to the Black Legion Warlord Traits and Chaos Artifacts list. You could then choose any Chaos Space Marines Faction 40K Approved Forge World units, Chaos Space Marines Faction Data Slates such as Be’Lakor or Chaos Space Marines Codex or Crimson Slaughter Supplement units. Units taken from a source would have access to wargear accessible to that model, such as a Crimson Slaughter HQ having access to their Chaos Artifact list.

Well, this contradicts your rules above. As pointed out, the decision to take Artefacts (or VotLW, or for Chosen to be Troops) is not something that happens on an individual unit level, it's something that happens on a Detachment level, defined in your opening statement by the Warlord. There are no such thing as Crimson Slaughter Supplement units - only units that have access to the Crimson Slaughter DWSRs, which this detachment wouldn't have.

And further

Example: If you were to use an HQ from the Farsight Enclave Supplement as your Warlord, you would be using a Tau Faction CAD. You would have access to the Farsight Enclave Warlord Traits and Signature Systems as well as the Eight (Farsight Enclave special suit units such as O’Vesa). Further, Crisis Suits would be troops in your CAD and you would be required to take a unit of 3 Crisis Suits as a troop unit. You would not be able to take Shadowsun or Aun’Va in that CAD. You would be able to select any eligible units from the Farsight Enclave Supplement, Tau Codex, Tau Faction 40K Approved units or Tau Faction Data Slates. Any unit chosen from another source would have access to wargear accessible to that model, such as an HQ chosen from the Tau Codex being able to take Signature Systems from that Supplement, ie. Buffmander.

Again, according to the opening statement, the entire Detachment would use the DWSRs for Farsight Enclaves, which prohibit any characters in the Detachment taking, say, a Command and Control Node. Taking a 'HQ from the Tau Codex' is an irrelevant statement - all the HQs are from the Tau Codex, what matters is that he's in a Detachment that has to abide by the DWSRs in the Farsight Codex.


In conclusion, and without meaning to be rude, I would suggest that your reading of 'units from multiple supplements in the same Detachment' is wrong and not RAW. There has been no 'subtle but meaningful change' that allows different Supplement DWSRs to coexist in the same detachment. RAW, as in 6th Edition, a Detachment must only use the rules from one Supplement or no Supplements.

Of course, TOs are free to use whatever rules they like - as you say, there's no 'set' way to play 7th and one of the benefits is the flexibility in the way we play. Absolutely fine. It just seems strange that, when there's a simple reading available that breaks no rules and requires very little rewriting, a more complicated and contentious ruling seems to have been used. This seems especially strange considering that one of the justifications is 'We want to change written rules as little as possible'.

(Not to mention the scariness that would result in a FW environment - 'all my LRBTs are Troops, because they're from the Armoured Company list'!)


ADDITIONAL FROM THE NOVA THREAD

points):

Combined Arms Detachment
Restrictions
All units chosen must have the same Faction (or have no Faction).

and

FACTIONS
All units belong to one of the many Factions that are fighting in the 41st Millennium. This will often be represented on the unit’s Army List Entry with a symbol, the key for which can be found to the right. A unit’s Faction applies regardless of how you choose your army, but is especially relevant to Detachments because many state that you can only include units of a particular Faction. Factions are also used when including Allies, and some special rules will apply only to specific Factions. Note that Fortifications are an exception in that, unless otherwise stated on their datasheet, they do not have a Faction.
In the case of older publications, the Faction of all the units described in a codex is the same as the codex’s title. In the case of codex supplements, the Faction of all the units described in that publication is the same as the codex it is a supplement of.

ARMY LIST ENTRIES IN DIFFERENT PUBLICATIONS
There are a few units whose Army List Entries are presented in more than one Games Workshop publication. Daemon Princes, for example, are presented in both Codex: Chaos Daemons and Codex: Chaos Space Marines. In these instances, the unit’s Faction is determined by whichever codex it was chosen from. Be sure to keep track of which is which if you decide to take one from more than one source.

Just to address this, my reading above seems to break none of these rules.

These rules refer to 'new unit', which I assume are things like he Farsight Special Characters (Draznicht's Ravagers etc), and obviously these do count as part of the Tau faction. That doesn't change the fact that they're only available to Detachments of the Tau Faction that are 'Farsight Detachments'. Again, that lines up with the opening statement of the BAO rules above.

Importantly, 'Farsight Commander' is not a new unit listed in any book. Neither is 'Black Legion Chosen' etc etc

The second point (Army List Entries in Different Publications) also does not apply in this case. Tau Commander is a unit that appears in only one place - the Tau Codex. His Signature Systems merely change if the Tau Faction Detachment he is chosen as part of is a Farsight Detachment. That detachment cannot simultaneously be a Farsight Detachment and also not a Farsight Detachment.



Edited a billion times for clarity!!

 ArbitorIan wrote:
(Not to mention the scariness that would result in a FW environment - 'all my LRBTs are Troops, because they're from the Armoured Company list'!)

I have to agree with this, and I play an armored company list. The list isn't too scary when used by itself, since the scoring LRBTs are paid for by giving up all of the (good) infantry options along with some other units (Manticores/Wyverns/multiple Vendettas/etc). But now why not take scoring LRBTs if you want tanks? IG hardly ever use up all of their troops slots anyway, so why even list them as a heavy support choice anymore? And hey, that pesky issue of all of the DKoK assault brigade HQs being weak and overpriced just went away, since I can take a codex CCS with 4x special weapons instead (along with a Vendetta or three, since they're now part of the same faction). It just completely removes all of the balancing factors that were supposed to make the IG variant lists interesting instead of just making the IG codex more powerful.

And Tau are in a similar position: under this ruling you might as well errata the codex to move crisis suits into troops, because every Tau army is going to take "Farsight" crisis suits as troops instead of wasting elites slots on them.