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... my army composition is CAD Farsight Enclave with Allied Detachment Codex Tau.

Is it legal for me to take Commander Bravestorm from my Farsight Enclave detachment who has Iridium Armor with a Commander from the Codex Tau Detachment with Iridium Armor?

I'd appreciate any clarification and insight on whether or not this is legal or not possible.

Relics (or in this case signature systems) are one per army, not detachment and the one per army rule still applies even when its a special character that has it.

Additionally, unless you have a third non-Tau detachment from which to select your warlord and thus make your primary detachment, your current army is illegal as an Allied Detachment may not be chosen from the same faction as the primary detachment.

^This as far as I'm aware

Thanks for use answer. Everything else is appreciated but it's legal. Thanks though

 syypher wrote:
Everything else is appreciated but it's legal.

If you think it's legal to take a primary Combined Arms Detachment from Codex: Tau Empire alongside an Allied Detachment chosen from Farsight Enclaves that is incorrect.

You may be confused by the line in Farsight Enclaves that states:

"In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers."

This line does not mean you may take a Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves Combined Arms and Allied Detachment combination, but simply means that they function together as Battle Brothers when included in the same army.

Both Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves detachments are of the Tau Empire faction, and the rules for an Allied Detachment state:

"All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction)."

You may take a Combined Arms Detachment each of Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves, but you may not have an Allied Detachment of either if your primary detachment is also from either.

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 syypher wrote:
Everything else is appreciated but it's legal.

If you think it's legal to take a primary Combined Arms Detachment from Codex: Tau Empire alongside an Allied Detachment chosen from Farsight Enclaves that is incorrect.

You may be confused by the line in Farsight Enclaves that states:

"In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers."

This line does not mean you may take a Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves Combined Arms and Allied Detachment combination, but simply means that they function together as Battle Brothers when included in the same army.

Both Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves detachments are of the Tau Empire faction, and the rules for an Allied Detachment state:

"All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment (or no Faction)."

You may take a Combined Arms Detachment each of Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves, but you may not have an Allied Detachment of either if your primary detachment is also from either.

He's right. You can't take a FE CAD and a TE AD together, assuming your Warlord is Tau Empire. The Allied Detachment restrictions prevent it.

I think you're confused, the term ally together as battle brothers clearly indicates Tau and FE can have allied detachments of each other. Using a rule from the BRB to say that's not what it means, does not work either as codex trumps rule book, so please use a different source for your reasoning on why it is not possible. The precedent already exists that supplements can ally with their main codex.

Many tournaments allow self ally. It may be legal for his meta.

Thylath wrote:
I think you're confused, the term ally together as battle brothers clearly indicates Tau and FE can have allied detachments of each other. Using a rule from the BRB to say that's not what it means, does not work either as codex trumps rule book, so please use a different source for your reasoning on why it is not possible. The precedent already exists that supplements can ally with their main codex.

No confusion at all. Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves detachments can ally as Battle Brothers, per the supplement. This is an unnecessary statement. They are both Faction: Tau Empire. Of course they can ally as Battle Brothers.

The Allied Detachment has a restriction saying that you can't have an Allied Detachment with the same Faction as your Warlord. Nothing in the Farsight Enclaves Supplement overrides this restriction.

So...

Illegal List
Tau Empire Combined Arms Detachment (Warlord/Primary Detachment)
Farsight Enclaves Allied Detachment

Legal List
Space Marines Combined Arms Detachment (Warlord/Primary Detachment)
Tau Empire Combined Arms Detachment
Farsight Enclaves Allied Detachment

And I assume you were talking about Codex: Space Marines. If you have a different Chapter Tactics, you're allowed to get around the Allied Detachment restriction. If you have the same, you can't.

Illegal List
Space Marines (Iron Hands Chapter Tactics) Combined Arms Detachment
Clan Raukaan Allied Detachment

The above is illegal because they both have Chapter Tactics: Iron Hands.

Thylath wrote:
I think you're confused, the term ally together as battle brothers clearly indicates Tau and FE can have allied detachments of each other. Using a rule from the BRB to say that's not what it means, does not work either as codex trumps rule book, so please use a different source for your reasoning on why it is not possible. The precedent already exists that supplements can ally with their main codex.

Incorrect. Alliance levels/ability to ally and the Allied Detachment are entirely different rules, so there is no conflict down that avenue. Codex trumps rulebook only when there is a conflict and the onus is on you to explain the conflict. No one is arguing a supplement may not ally with its parent codex, but that is not the same thing as choosing a detachment from the parent codex as the primary detachment and then taking an Allied Detachment of either the parent codex or its supplement.

Fragile wrote:
Many tournaments allow self ally. It may be legal for his meta.

That is as may be the case but the OP stated it was legal, which is by the ordinary rules incorrect.

Y'all are applying rules that didn't exist to a 6th edition codex, when Codex: Tau came out there was only primary detachment and an ally (not allied detachment) per primary detachment. The rule existed then as it does now that the allies must be from a different codex than the primary detachment. Your saying the rule in the FE applies to CADs, which could not be possible as CADs did not exist in 6th edition. The rule is very specific in what it meant then and it means the same now. As there was no other types of detachments than the primary, allies means allied detachment. Which means that since GW hates to errata stuff, RAW it can only mean one thing. There is no RAI in this, sometimes you have to go back to when a book was written to figure out what the rule really means.

Thylath wrote:
Y'all are applying rules that didn't exist to a 6th edition codex, when Codex: Tau came out there was only primary detachment and an ally (not allied detachment) per primary detachment. The rule existed then as it does now that the allies must be from a different codex than the primary detachment. Your saying the rule in the FE applies to CADs, which could not be possible as CADs did not exist in 6th edition. The rule is very specific in what it meant then and it means the same now. As there was no other types of detachments than the primary, allies means allied detachment. Which means that since GW hates to errata stuff, RAW it can only mean one thing. There is no RAI in this, sometimes you have to go back to when a book was written to figure out what the rule really means.

And then there is the fact that a New Rulebook will create / modify Rules to mean brand new things.

When that is the case, the old rules are replaced / discarded. You don't just continue to use them if they no longer work... Otherwise we'd all have super fun rules !
I would love to play Necron monoliths by their 5th Edition rules, and move the enemy out of the way

Your adding comments where there is none, my point is that the FE book says you can ally with Tau and vice versa, that can only mean one thing, that you can ally with Tau and vice versa, no caveats, no this because of that, the rule is clear in what it says and means, "In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers." This already gives a stipulations for following the allies matrix then goes out of the way to say they can then ally with each other. There is only one type of ally and that is an allied detachment if your doing that in addition to following the matrix.

Thylath wrote:
There is only one type of ally and that is an allied detachment if your doing that in addition to following the matrix.

That's not correct.
The allied rules are not restricted to Allied detachments. You can take a CAD of FE and a CAD of Tau and be forced to use the Ally rules.

Not when the rule was written you couldn't. They did not exist.

Thylath wrote:
Your adding comments where there is none, my point is that the FE book says you can ally with Tau and vice versa, that can only mean one thing, that you can ally with Tau and vice versa, no caveats, no this because of that, the rule is clear in what it says and means, "In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers." This already gives a stipulations for following the allies matrix then goes out of the way to say they can then ally with each other. There is only one type of ally and that is an allied detachment if your doing that in addition to following the matrix.

"In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers." means 2 things:
1) Farsight Enclaves detachments follow the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire.
2) Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire are Battle Brothers.

It does not say "Farsight Enclaves detachments can be taken as Allied Detachments for Tau Combined Arms Detachment from the 7th Edition Rulebook"

The above simply means that Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire are Battle Brothers. Great. They are still of the same Faction (something that was "invented" in the 7th Edition Rulebook)
The fact that "Factions" were "invented", and this rule: "All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment" mean that if your Primary is a Codex: Tau Empire Detachment, you simply cannot take Farsight Enclaves detachments as Allied Detachments. That's the Rules, sorry.

No, the rule existed in 6th edition too, go look it up, page 109 and 112. They used the word codex in 6th...

Thylath wrote:
No, the rule existed in 6th edition too, go look it up, page 109 and 112. They used the word codex in 6th...

I no longer have my 6th Ed rulebook... What rule?

"Factions" or "All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment"?

Thylath wrote:
Not when the rule was written you couldn't. They did not exist.

What's your point? We're playing 7th edition now, not anything else.

Has the rule been errataed? No? Then who cares about an old rule?

It has not been changed in any way is my point. The rules are exactly the same as they were, they changed some names and added some cool new tricks, but the rule is still the same as it was then as it is now.

Thylath wrote:It has not been changed in any way is my point. The rules are exactly the same as they were, they changed same names and added some cool new tricks, but the rule is still the same as it was then as it is now.

Thylath wrote:Not when the rule was written you couldn't. They did not exist.

So the rules are the same, but you can do different things now than you could then.

Erm.

Are you sure? Because to me, that means rule changed. And in fact, the Allies rules have changed rather significantly from 6th to 7th.

Thylath wrote:
It has not been changed in any way is my point. The rules are exactly the same as they were, they changed same names and added some cool new tricks, but the rule is still the same as it was then as it is now.

"In addition to following the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire, Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire detachments may ally together as Battle Brothers." means 2 things:
1) Farsight Enclaves detachments follow the Allies Matrix for Codex: Tau Empire.
2) Farsight Enclaves detachments and Codex: Tau Empire are Battle Brothers.

This has not changed.
You are right.

But an Allied Detachment has a brand new rule:
"All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment"
Codex: Tau Empire and Farsight Enclaves have the same Faction.

They cannot use the an Allied Detachment if you only have Tau. They will have to be Combined Arms Detachments.

Old rule, "...all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment."

So the rules were the same as they are now, they also called them allied detachment back then, so must still mean allied detachment in the FE book now...

Thylath wrote:
Old rule, "...all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment."

So the rules were the same as they are now, they also called them allied detachment back then, so must still mean allied detachment in the FE book now...

Except that's not the only rules covering allied detachments anymore.
And there are even more rules covering Allies.

Which means that when editions change there are side effects.

Show a side effect other than the ones already listed, because every rule listed existed when the codex was written and back then they were able to ally with each other.

Thylath wrote:
Old rule, "...all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment."

So the rules were the same as they are now, they also called them allied detachment back then, so must still mean allied detachment in the FE book now...

No, because that rule has changed:
"...all units in the allied detachment must be chosen from the same codex, and this must be a different codex to the one used for the primary detachment."
"All units chosen must have a different Faction to any of the units in your Primary Detachment"

The above 2 are very different. The Rules have changed in the Rulebook, even if the Codex one is the same

Thylath wrote:
Show a side effect other than the ones already listed, because every rule listed existed when the codex was written and back then they were able to ally with each other.

And they still can.

They just can't take an Allied Detachment. The entire rules for Allies changed between 6th and 7th.

I don't agree that it is different and no one I know plays it the way y'all are describing, but I guess that's why the 1st rule of the game exists. Thanks for the input though.

Thylath wrote:
I don't agree that it is different and no one I know plays it the way y'all are describing, but I guess that's why the 1st rule of the game exists. Thanks for the input though.

Of course, but i suggest you also read the Tenets:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/253892.page

You must support your point of view with rules from books, and these have indeed changed between 6th Edition and 7th Edition, changing how they are resolved in the process.