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.

The moment the list is written using the FSE rules!

So if you use the FSE supplement then ALL your detachments are FSE is that what you are claiming?

FlingitNow wrote:So of you choose a FSE Army all detachments within are FSE Detachments is that your claim?

As for knowing what detachments are/aren't FSE detachments I meant from a rules perspective. What rules have you used to determine if a detachment is a FSE detachment?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Charistoph wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
So how do I know a CAD that contains TE faction units is a FSE detachment? What rules determine how you turn a TE CAD into a FSE CAD?
Automatically Appended Next Post:
This is not new stuff this all cane out the day 7th dropped.

Try the day the FSE supplement dropped. There really isn't any difference in what they wrote then and now. How do you know a CAD is one Chapter Tactics or another (without obvious things like Unique Characters or Tactic Specific units)? The army is built that way and your opponent tells you.

As for TE versus FSE: Special Rules available to units, Crisis Suits changed Roles, certain Uniques became unavailable, and certain Wargear was required while new ones became available.

Where is it written that Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement? All you've given is your declarations.

Actually FSE worked fine with 6th Ed army building largely due to the quote you've given. In 6th you selected an ARMY that followed a FOC and could add an Ally to it. In 7th you simply select units, formations and detachments from any codex you wish.

Incorrect as well. The FAQ changed "army" to "Detachment", so still the same concepts in play. So it seems this is only illegal in your head.

Chapter Tactics is a good example as that is also a broken rule for the same reason (no rules tell you how to nominate which CT you are using they all deal with what happens once that choice is made).

Going off memory, this is still incorrect, as it tells you to select a Chapter Tactics when choosing a Detachment, and has since Chapter Tactics was introduced.

Nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. Just as nothing declares Codex: Craftworlds overrides Codex: Eldar.

So nothing is Written regarding your claim that Mont'ka overrides FSE by RAW, the Rules As Written.

So let me get this straight. Use of the FarSight Enclaves Supplement allows you to field a detachment (per the FAQ) of the Tau Empire Codex, which ceases to be the Tau Empire Faction and becomes the FarSight Enclaves Faction. Okay.

Now you say that the Mont'ka book allows you to, what exactly? It is no longer a Tau Empire Faction, but rather a Farsight Enclaves Faction.

If you use the Farsight Enclaves supplement, you cannot therefore use any of the rules found in Mont'ka because the initial faction is Farsight Enclaves, not Tau Empire. No Detachments, no Formations, nothing, period.

Where am I wrong in any of this?

My understanding of the limitations is that if you go this particular route, you can still have a Hunter Contingent. You cannot have a Dawnblade Contingent, a Riptide Wing, that Drone net thingy, or any other formation ever printed. You are limited to those listed on Pgs. 72 & 73 of the current Tau Empire Codex.

Looked at one way, this is favorable as it strips the Signature Systems that break Combined Firepower.

How am I wrong?

Oh, and saying that you can house rule the issue is sidestepping the issue. You can houserule anything. An argument by RaW is an entirely different can of worms.

You're wrong because a FSE detachment is still faction Tau Empire. There is no such hing as faction FSE.

Let's say both books are fine.

You can have an army consist of a CAD made up of the supplement... And a DBC out of Montka. A CAD out of Montka, and a formation out of Kauyon that is taken as FSE paying the BKR tax for whatever you needed too.

Incorrect as well. The FAQ changed "army" to "Detachment", so still the same concepts in play. So it seems this is only illegal in your head. 

Did it? You might want to check that. The FAQ is very specific about which instances of army are changed to detachment.

Going off memory, this is still incorrect, as it tells you to select a Chapter Tactics when choosing a Detachment, and has since Chapter Tactics was introduced. 

Again you conveniently "forget" the truth. Nothing in the SM codex tells you how to select a CT for a detachment.

So nothing is Written regarding your claim that Mont'ka overrides FSE by RAW, the Rules As Written.

Lying is impolite and does not help your argument. I have been very clear in my argument about what is RaW and what isn't.

 FlingitNow wrote:
Again you conveniently "forget" the truth. Nothing in the SM codex tells you how to select a CT for a detachment.

Doesn't this:

"When choosing an army, you must make a note of which Chapter each unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule is drawn from. All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

?

 Mr. Shine wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:
Again you conveniently "forget" the truth. Nothing in the SM codex tells you how to select a CT for a detachment.

Doesn't this:

"When choosing an army, you must make a note of which Chapter each unit with the Chapter Tactics special rule is drawn from. All models in the same Detachment or Formation must be drawn from the same Chapter."

?

You make note of which Chapter you are drawn from. Which Chapter you are drawn from is determined by your CTs, nothing tells you how to determine those CTs. It is a silly RaW argument, but that is still RaW.

You lost me there, FlingitNow. So what you are asking for is that the rulebook defines what making note means, otherwise you can't play the game by RAW? This here is the reason why YMDC turns into complete silliness.

Naw wrote:
You lost me there, FlingitNow. So what you are asking for is that the rulebook defines what making note means, otherwise you can't play the game by RAW? This here is the reason why YMDC turns into complete silliness.

It doesn't need to define note unless it wants note to mean something other than the standard English definition. In normal English making a note of something isn't the same as choosing that. For instance if you make a note of my address you are not choosing where I live.

I don't understand the issue you are having. Every detachment in your army, choose what chapter tactics make up that detachment.

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I don't understand the issue you are having. Every detachment in your army, choose what chapter tactics make up that detachment.

Cool what rules tell you that you can do that?

 FlingitNow wrote:

Naw wrote:
You lost me there, FlingitNow. So what you are asking for is that the rulebook defines what making note means, otherwise you can't play the game by RAW? This here is the reason why YMDC turns into complete silliness.

It doesn't need to define note unless it wants note to mean something other than the standard English definition. In normal English making a note of something isn't the same as choosing that. For instance if you make a note of my address you are not choosing where I live.

Thanks for proving my point there. I however choose to take the context into account. You of course are free to play your marines without using any chapter tactics.

Now back to the topic, I'm not the only one who is confused by your comments instisting I suddenly could not field a CAD from the FSE supplement.

FlingitNow wrote:[Lying is impolite and does not help your argument. I have been very clear in my argument about what is RaW and what isn't.

Convenient of you to clip the quote so you can present yourself as superior. Why are you lying in such a fashion?

Charistoph wrote:

Nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. Just as nothing declares Codex: Craftworlds overrides Codex: Eldar.

So nothing is Written regarding your claim that Mont'ka overrides FSE by RAW, the Rules As Written.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I don't understand the issue you are having. Every detachment in your army, choose what chapter tactics make up that detachment.

Cool what rules tell you that you can do that?

Rudimentary reading comprehension? I really don't understand how you can read that and not think you're supposed to choose your chapter.

Charistoph wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:[Lying is impolite and does not help your argument. I have been very clear in my argument about what is RaW and what isn't.

Convenient of you to clip the quote so you can present yourself as superior. Why are you lying in such a fashion?

Charistoph wrote:

Nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. Just as nothing declares Codex: Craftworlds overrides Codex: Eldar.

So nothing is Written regarding your claim that Mont'ka overrides FSE by RAW, the Rules As Written.

Not sure how that changes anything? You've still lied about my argument which is still an impolite way to discuss.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Kriswall wrote:

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I don't understand the issue you are having. Every detachment in your army, choose what chapter tactics make up that detachment.

Cool what rules tell you that you can do that?

Rudimentary reading comprehension? I really don't understand how you can read that and not think you're supposed to choose your chapter.

Which part gives permission to do that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Now back to the topic, I'm not the only one who is confused by your comments instisting I suddenly could not field a CAD from the FSE supplement.

RaW you never could the same is true for all 6th Ed Supplements. If by suddenly you mean since the start of 7th Ed we have different definitions of suddenly...

Alright guys im going to explain it here:

-Warzone Damocles: Montka is NOT a Codex, therefore it does not invalidate the Farsight Enclaves Supplement.

-The Farsight Enclaves Supplement States " A Farsight Enclaves Detachment is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire. Note you can only use the options from one Codex Supplement when choosing your army.

-Codex: Tau Empire did not change, as stated in the WD released by GW. You could keep your current 6th Edition Codex: Tau Empire if you wanted, however if you wanted access to the new Formations and units you would have to buy Warzone Damocles: Kyuon. It specifically stated that in the WD.

Therefore according to how RAW you can still choose to field the FSE Supplement Book if you wish and run a Combined Arms Detachment of FSE out of it as it cannnot be replaced by a Campaign/Warzone book. If you wish to field a Dawn Blade Contigent you would have to use the rules for it found in the Mont'Ka book as it made up of a series of Formations. Since the FSE Forces found in the Supplement are listed as a Detachment (per the updated FAQ for it to be played in 7th Edition) you could still attach Formations from either the Tau Codex or either Campaign Books to this Combined Arms Detachment just like any army could. It is really that simple, GW has not come out and said that the Supplement is Illegal to run and there is nothing showing with how they went about the updated Tau hinting at it either. This also supports the rumors of a brand new Farsight Enclaves Supplement being released in January of next year, at that point and time if a new Supplement is released then and only then would it replace the current one.

 FlingitNow wrote:

Charistoph wrote:

FlingitNow wrote:[Lying is impolite and does not help your argument. I have been very clear in my argument about what is RaW and what isn't.

Convenient of you to clip the quote so you can present yourself as superior. Why are you lying in such a fashion?

Charistoph wrote:

Nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. Just as nothing declares Codex: Craftworlds overrides Codex: Eldar.

So nothing is Written regarding your claim that Mont'ka overrides FSE by RAW, the Rules As Written.

Not sure how that changes anything? You've still lied about my argument which is still an impolite way to discuss.

You said nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. That means nothing has been written to tell us to ignore the FSE supplement. If it is not Written, there is no Rules As Written to apply.

This is not lying, this is logic. I did not misquote you, which could be a form of lying, I used your words. If you intended them differently, than correct yourself.

You are taking a convention and calling it RAW, the same as calling Tradition as law.

If you can provide a quote from errata or book, that would be RAW, but you have not and called someone who quoted you properly a liar. Do you work in political journalism?

-The Farsight Enclaves Supplement States " A Farsight Enclaves Detachment is chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire. Note you can only use the options from one Codex Supplement when choosing your army. 

No it doesn't. That paragraph makes no mention of detachments.

You said nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. That means nothing has been written to tell us to ignore the FSE supplement. If it is not Written, there is no Rules As Written to apply. 

This is not lying, this is logic. I did not misquote you, which could be a form of lying, I used your words. If you intended them differently, than correct yourself. 

You are taking a convention and calling it RAW, the same as calling Tradition as law. 

If you can provide a quote from errata or book, that would be RAW, but you have not and called someone who quoted you properly a liar. Do you work in political journalism?

I've called someone who quoted then claimed I said the opposite of what I have said. I have NEVER stated that there is RaW that Mont'ka overrides the FSE Supplement. I in fact repeatedly stated the opposite. So why persist with this made up argument against something I have never posted? How is that going to help move the discussion forward or get us anywhere? Lying about what I have stated is lying which is rude and impolite and does not help the discussion. Please desist from this pattern of behaviour.

 gmaleron wrote:
-Warzone Damocles: Mon'tka is NOT a Codex, therefore it does not invalidate the Farsight Enclaves Supplement.

You keep saying this. Neither Mont'ka or FSE are codexes. Why does the statement that Montka is not a codex therefore say anything about whether or not it replaces another document that isn't a codex?

 gmaleron wrote:
GW has not come out and said that the Supplement is Illegal to run

You keep saying this as well but since GW (almost) never state this even when a codex or supplement is clearly being replaced the lack of this statement proves nothing.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
GW has not come out and said that the Supplement is Illegal to run

You keep saying this as well but since GW (almost) never state this even when a codex or supplement is clearly being replaced the lack of this statement proves nothing.

If you would read it all I explained and showed how there is no hint that they had any reason to discontinue it and RAW it is still playable since Codex: Tau Empire is still Codex: Tau Empire.

 FlingitNow wrote:

-The Farsight Enclaves Supplement States " A Farsight Enclaves DETACHMENTis chosen using the army list presented in Codex: Tau Empire. It also has a series of supplemental rules (presented below) that can be used in addition to the material found in Codex: Tau Empire. Note you can only use the options from one Codex Supplement when choosing your army.

No it doesn't. That paragraph makes no mention of detachments.

You need to read it again, it clearly dose thanks to the FAQ for 7th Edition.

 gmaleron wrote:
If you would read it all I explained and showed how there is no hint that they had any reason to discontinue it

Except for a newer version which is usually the only reason they need.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 gmaleron wrote:
If you would read it all I explained and showed how there is no hint that they had any reason to discontinue it

Except for a newer version which is usually the only reason they need.

This is not a newer version, this is a Campaign book and Campaign books do not replace Codex's or Supplements. Your statement that GW has never verified this is false as well, they actually came out and said that the Iyanden one was Illegal and the Imperial Fist and Iron Hands Supplements were legal.

 FlingitNow wrote:

 Grizzyzz wrote:
I don't understand the issue you are having. Every detachment in your army, choose what chapter tactics make up that detachment.

Cool what rules tell you that you can do that?

It clearly states under chapter tactics, that when you take a detachment you choose your chapter for that detachment. Your army can be made of multiple detachments I e. CAD s, formations, allies, whatever.

Not sure how much more clear it needs to be.

FlingitNow wrote:

You said nothing declares Mont'ka overrides the FSE supplement. That means nothing has been written to tell us to ignore the FSE supplement. If it is not Written, there is no Rules As Written to apply. 

This is not lying, this is logic. I did not misquote you, which could be a form of lying, I used your words. If you intended them differently, than correct yourself. 

You are taking a convention and calling it RAW, the same as calling Tradition as law. 

If you can provide a quote from errata or book, that would be RAW, but you have not and called someone who quoted you properly a liar. Do you work in political journalism?

I've called someone who quoted then claimed I said the opposite of what I have said. I have NEVER stated that there is RaW that Mont'ka overrides the FSE Supplement. I in fact repeatedly stated the opposite. So why persist with this made up argument against something I have never posted? How is that going to help move the discussion forward or get us anywhere? Lying about what I have stated is lying which is rude and impolite and does not help the discussion. Please desist from this pattern of behaviour.

Lying is deliberately presenting misinformation. I'm taking information you have stated and the position you established to make this statement.

Let's look at your first post in this thread.

FlingitNow wrote:Cool RaW FSE supplement is still legal. RaW FSE Supplement (like all 6th Ed Supplements) doesn't work as there is no way of making any given detachment a FSE detachment without using the Mont'ka rules.

Mont'ka clearly updates the FSE supplement and thus replaces it. Much like when the Assassins can subsumed into Codex Grey Knights (and later separated). If you want to play RaW games you can't puck and choose which RaW applies and which doesn't.

If you weren't saying it, you sure were implying it on a very strong level. In the first paragraph you state it is legal, but then later on, you are stating that the only way to play FSE RAW is use Mont'ka.

But then, you didn't think there was a RAW method to play FSE in the first place, nor later on, so your judgement in this matter is suspect.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
True, but when they decide that they won't be printing any more physical copies that usually means that the writing is on the wall.

Sisters of Battle? =(

Can we not simply agree that per RAW Codex Supplement: Farsight Enclaves is simply still as legal as ever it was in 7th, which I think to any sensible person was probably the clear point of the thread?

Regardless of books. Let's assume both a legal.

How do you then enter a game with an FSE force. And not have your opponents question you since montka and the supplement provide different rules?

You don't, because generally-accepted convention is that newer books supersede older where the rules refer to the same unit/faction/detachment.

The reality of course is that everything in this game is only as legal as your opponent is willing to play against, at the end of the day. You can't coerce someone into playing you on the basis that you're using the latest book with a completely legal Battle-forged list if they simply don't want to play it, for whatever reason.