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.
Mr. Shine 674049 834142228b4d5cfe8bb4aac77957ba2adb866fd.jpg wrote:You don't, because generally-accepted convention is that newer books supersede older where the rules refer to the same unit/faction/detachment.
I agree the newer set of rules is the one you should follow, however this is a unique case because this is a Campaign / Warzone book. According to that logic then does that mean White Scars and Raven Guard can no longer be taken out of Codex Space Marines since they have updated / different rules in the Campaign book as well? Generally this is looked at not being the case as I have continually played people still running them out of the current Codex Space Marines so why shouldn't the same thing be extended to the Farsight Enclaves? In actuality they are exactly the same rule wise in both books except for Riptides not clearly being stated that they can take Signature Systems like they are in the FSE Supplement and you don't have to take all of The 8 in a single Formation, you can pick and choose. However that is easily ignored when you state where you're taking the Detachment from.
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
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.
Did you bother to even read the quote? I never stated nor implied RaW was that Mont'ka overrides FSE Supplement. In that very post I point out the opposite (that you need to use a little common sense to realise that Mont'ka overrides FSE much like you need common sense toeven be able to use FSE in the first place, hence the comment about picking and choosing when to apply strict RaW). Basic comprehension here.
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.
-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.
Does it? What section is that paragraph from?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/26 10:12:13
If I make a note that my army uses Chapter Tactics: Crustacean Overlords you're going to have to take my word for it, because there's no rule that lets you appeal (except Rule 1, but y'know...). I'm not choosing a Chapter Tactic, I'm noting one as being inherent in the army list I'm writing.
For thirteen years I had a dog with fur the darkest black. For thirteen years he was my friend, oh how I want him back.
2015/12/26 10:27:34
Subject: Re:The Farsight Supplement is Still Legal
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.
Reading comprehension is apparently a problem. I said that GW had (almost) never specified. There are a few examples where they did specify but in the vast majority of cases of books being superseded there is no comment or pronouncement.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/26 10:29:05
2015/12/26 12:27:47
Subject: Re:The Farsight Supplement is Still Legal
No it's up to the one that claims that a Campain Book replace a codex supplement to prove this claim.
Actually - gmaleron is the person making the assertion (he's said repeatedly from him first post in this thread that a campaign book cannot replace a supplement) so it's on him to provide some kind of evidence.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/26 12:50:31
Scott-S6 wrote: Reading comprehension is apparently a problem. I said that GW had (almost) never specified. There are a few examples where they did specify but in the vast majority of cases of books being superseded there is no comment or pronouncement.
No need to be childish because even then you're wrong. With the Codex's that have Supplements that have been redone during 7th Edition/ recently (Eldar, Space Marines and Tau) all have had their Supplements addressed so no its not only a few, its all of them. And I have to double check when I get home as I am at work currently but a good indicator is how it's labeled on the Games Workshop site. Warzone Damocles Kauyon is listed under "Expansions" not under "Codexs or Supplements".
And hypothetically if you were right that would mean according to your argument that the Imperial Guard, White Scars and Raven Guard can no longer be taken out of Codex Space Marines or Codex Astra Militarium since their updated rules are in Warzone Damocles: Kauyon and Mont'ka. That would also mean that Codex: Blood Angels and Codex: Tyranids would have to take the rules out of their Warzone: Baal book since it came out after their respective Codexs were released. That doesn't make any sense at all, what makes more sense is that these are new and optional Detachments and Formations being added on to already existing rules.
And right back at you, prove it that campaign / warzone book rules supersede and are considered "new/updated rules when compared to current and valid Codex and Supplement rules. You demand proof supporting my argument I demand the same.
Page 129 of the Farsight Enclaves says this, right at the beginning of "The Army of the Farsight Enclaves". The FAQ which was updated for 7th Edition states "Replace all instances of " Farsight Enclaves Army" with "Farsight Enclaves Detachment".
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2015/12/26 14:07:57
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
Grizzyzz wrote: 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 have a 30 second conversation with your opponent and tell them which rules source you're using.
How do I put down a Tactical Squad and not have my opponent question me since Blood Angels and Space Marines provide different rules? Same answer. I tell him which rules I'm using.
Check out my website. Editorials! Tutorials! Fun Times To Be Had! - kriswallminis.com
Scott-S6 wrote: Reading comprehension is apparently a problem. I said that GW had (almost) never specified. There are a few examples where they did specify but in the vast majority of cases of books being superseded there is no comment or pronouncement.
No need to be childish because even then you're wrong. With the Codex's that have Supplements that have been redone during 7th Edition/ recently (Eldar, Space Marines and Tau) all have had their Supplements addressed so no its not only a few, its all of them. And I have to double check when I get home as I am at work currently but a good indicator is how it's labeled on the Games Workshop site. Warzone Damocles Kauyon is listed under "Expansions" not under "Codexs or Supplements".
And hypothetically if you were right that would mean according to your argument that the Imperial Guard, White Scars and Raven Guard can no longer be taken out of Codex Space Marines or Codex Astra Militarium since their updated rules are in Warzone Damocles: Kauyon and Mont'ka. That would also mean that Codex: Blood Angels and Codex: Tyranids would have to take the rules out of their Warzone: Baal book since it came out after their respective Codexs were released. That doesn't make any sense at all, what makes more sense is that these are new and optional Detachments and Formations being added on to already existing rules.
And right back at you, prove it that campaign / warzone book rules supersede and are considered "new/updated rules when compared to current and valid Codex and Supplement rules. You demand proof supporting my argument I demand the same.
Page 129 of the Farsight Enclaves says this, right at the beginning of "The Army of the Farsight Enclaves". The FAQ which was updated for 7th Edition states "Replace all instances of " Farsight Enclaves Army" with "Farsight Enclaves Detachment".
So your first part is just ludicrous as you can't use Mont'ka for guard WITHOUT the AM Codex. So stop trying that ludicrous argument as that is not remotely similar. Also note how you're comparing Codexes rather than Supplements. If there was say a Cadian supplement then yes you could argue it would have been replaced by Mont'ka.
As for the part addressing me please quote the entire FAQ as it does not effect the paragraph you have mentioned it specifies in which sections that army is replaced by Detachment...
FlingitNow wrote: So your first part is just ludicrous as you can't use Mont'ka for guard WITHOUT the AM Codex. So stop trying that ludicrous argument as that is not remotely similar. Also note how you're comparing Codexes rather than Supplements. If there was say a Cadian supplement then yes you could argue it would have been replaced by Mont'ka.
As for the part addressing me please quote the entire FAQ as it does not effect the paragraph you have mentioned it specifies in which sections that army is replaced by Detachment...
Really imagine that, you cant use the Farsight Enclaves Supplement WITHOUT Codex: Tau Empire, and I notice you did not address the White Scars, Blood Angels or Raven Guard with their special rules found in their Campaign books, does that mean they have to run their rules from the Campaign Book over the Codex as well? Its not ludicrous, what's ludicrous is the fact that you have yet to provide any proof or fact backing up your statements. And yes it does effect the paragraph are you serious?
" 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."
Tell me how it does not effect the paragraph when it clearly effects the paragraph and the army as a whole?
Also from Warzone Damocles Mont'ka:
"This Chapter describes several new Formations that enable you to field your Tau miniatures in specific combinations on the battlefield, reflecting the diverse makeup of Tau Cadres. In addition, it presents a new Detachment, wargear and rules that can be used to reflect the organization and fighting practices of the Tau armies from the Farsight Enclaves."
Nowhere in there does it say that you cannot utilize the FSE Supplement Book or the rules found in it. This is just like the White Scars and the Raven Guard who have a similar entry written in Kauyon, so according to your logic if the Farsight Enclaves have to run their armies out of the updated Warzone Book (which it says that nowhere in it) then the White Scars and Raven Guard would have to as well. Bottom line the Farsight Enclaves Supplement has rules that allow it to be run in 7th Edition and there is nothing stating anywhere that you can not continue to do so, who knew that wanting to run a few members of the 8 outside of the Formation would cause such drama.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2015/12/26 15:29:19
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
Actually the White Scars, BAs etc is exactly same as AM as they are CODEXES and you NEED to use the codex to use the campaign book. The campaign books function as Supplements in that way.
On the paragraph what section is it in? Battlesuit Spearhead? Ork Hunters? Ta'lissera Bond? Farsight's Commander Team? Divergent Destiny?
If it is not in one of those sections it is not effected by the FAQ.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Nowhere in there does it say that you cannot utilize the FSE Supplement Book or the rules found in it. This is just like the White Scars and the Raven Guard who have a similar entry written in Kauyon, so according to your logic if the Farsight Enclaves have to run their armies out of the updated Warzone Book (which it says that nowhere in it) then the White Scars and Raven Guard would have to as well. Bottom line the Farsight Enclaves Supplement has rules that allow it to be run in 7th Edition and there is nothing stating anywhere that you can not continue to do so, who knew that wanting to run a few members of the 8 outside of the Formation would cause such drama.
If there was such a thing as Supplement White Scars or Supplement Ravenguard you'd have a point. But there isn't so you don't. You do understand codexes and supplements are different right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/26 15:33:48
FlingitNow wrote:Did you bother to even read the quote? I never stated nor implied RaW was that Mont'ka overrides FSE Supplement. In that very post I point out the opposite (that you need to use a little common sense to realise that Mont'ka overrides FSE much like you need common sense toeven be able to use FSE in the first place, hence the comment about picking and choosing when to apply strict RaW). Basic comprehension here.
Did you?
FlingitNow wrote: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.
You believe that it clearly updates it, but without any direct written word, it is not clear, it is assumed. Then you say that in RAW games you can't pick and choose, implying that by RAW, Mont'ka replaces FSE.
And no, common sense was not need to be able to use FSE in the first place, that is only an assumption on your part.
FlingitNow wrote:
gmaleron wrote: Page 129 of the Farsight Enclaves says this, right at the beginning of "The Army of the Farsight Enclaves". The FAQ which was updated for 7th Edition states "Replace all instances of " Farsight Enclaves Army" with "Farsight Enclaves Detachment".
As for the part addressing me please quote the entire FAQ as it does not effect the paragraph you have mentioned it specifies in which sections that army is replaced by Detachment...
Let's see:
Spoiler:
AMENDMENTS
Page 50 - Battlesuit Spearhead, Ork Hunters, Ta'lissera Bond, Farsight's Commander Team and Divergent Destiny
Replace all instances of 'Farsight Enclaves army' with 'Farsight Enclaves Detachment'.
Signature Systems also replaces 'your army' with 'a Farsight Enclaves Detachment.
The introductory paragraph of The Army of the Farsight Enclaves:
Spoiler:
A Farsight Enclaves army 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 that you can only use the options from one codex supplement when choosing your army.
And the Rulebook:
Spoiler:
ARMY SELECTION METHODS There are many ways to choose an army, and they all have their strengths...
...
The two main ways of organising an army are the Unbound method and the Battleforged method. Both players need not use the same method.
...
Battle-forged Armies A player using the Battle-forged method must organise all the units they want to use into Detachments. Detachments are made up of units that conform to various requirements. For example, one common type of Detachment requires the use of at least one HQ unit and two Troops units; another might require that only units from Codex: Orks be included. As a reward for adhering to these requirements, each Detachment grants its own Command Benefits to the units within it, which can really enhance their effectiveness in battle.
...
DETACHMENTS Armies are usually structured organisations; even the Orks organise their warriors into mobs and warbands, though perhaps not with quite the same vigour as the Astra Militarum organises its squads, platoons, companies and regiments.
As discussed above, there are many ways to forge a collection of Citadel miniatures into an army ready to crush your enemies in games of Warhammer 40,000. This section focuses on the Battle-forged method. If you opt to choose an army using this method, your units are organised into Detachments and many gain special rules and in-game advantages.
...
There is no limit to the number of Detachments a Battle-forged army can include and you can use any mixture of Detachments you have available, within the restrictions of the rules that follow. However, all of the units in your army must belong to a Detachment and no unit can belong to more than one Detachment. If you choose to use a Battle-forged army, you must tell your opponent what units belong to what Detachments and what Command Benefits each will receive (if any) before you start deploying your army.
...
In order to organise their army into Detachments, a player will often need to use additional information found in their units’ Army List Entries, such as Faction and Battlefield Role.
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.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
2015/12/26 16:00:59
Subject: Re:The Farsight Supplement is Still Legal
Still no definition of what turns a Detachment containing Tau Empire Faction units into a Farsight Enclaves Detachment. Still no way to make that designation. Note how Mont'ka does have such a rule. Now with some common sense we can infer that as FSE uses the Tau Empire units that any detachment containing TE faction units can be designated a FSE Detachment and thus triggers all the FSE rules. However nothing states that so we use common sense. Just as nothing states that Codex: Craftworlds updated and replaced Codex: Eldar so we use some common sense. So either we take the common sense route and you can't use FSE as it was clearly updated by Mont'ka. Or we use the pure RaW aporoach in which case FSE was not updated by Mont'ka but is also unfortunately unusable due to having no RaW way to make a FSE detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gmaleron wrote: ^^ Key phrase in there is Replace all instances of 'Farsight Enclaves army' with 'Farsight Enclaves Detachment'.
Only in the sections it tells you to do that! You can't take half a sentence and apply it. Otherwise at the start of the game were you deploy 2nd I'll declare myself the winner as you have no models on the table...
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/26 16:08:42
FlingitNow wrote: Still no definition of what turns a Detachment containing Tau Empire Faction units into a Farsight Enclaves Detachment. Still no way to make that designation. Note how Mont'ka does have such a rule. Now with some common sense we can infer that as FSE uses the Tau Empire units that any detachment containing TE faction units can be designated a FSE Detachment and thus triggers all the FSE rules. However nothing states that so we use common sense. Just as nothing states that Codex: Craftworlds updated and replaced Codex: Eldar so we use some common sense. So either we take the common sense route and you can't use FSE as it was clearly updated by Mont'ka. Or we use the pure RaW aporoach in which case FSE was not updated by Mont'ka but is also unfortunately unusable due to having no RaW way to make a FSE detachment.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
gmaleron wrote: ^^ Key phrase in there is Replace all instances of 'Farsight Enclaves army' with 'Farsight Enclaves Detachment'.
Only in the sections it tells you to do that! You can't take half a sentence and apply it. Otherwise at the start of the game were you deploy 2nd I'll declare myself the winner as you have no models on the table...
just give it up already jeez lol. As of right now they still sell FSE codex. That should be indication enough that it is still usable.
FlingitNow wrote: Still no definition of what turns a Detachment containing Tau Empire Faction units into a Farsight Enclaves Detachment. Still no way to make that designation. Note how Mont'ka does have such a rule. Now with some common sense we can infer that as FSE uses the Tau Empire units that any detachment containing TE faction units can be designated a FSE Detachment and thus triggers all the FSE rules. However nothing states that so we use common sense. Just as nothing states that Codex: Craftworlds updated and replaced Codex: Eldar so we use some common sense. So either we take the common sense route and you can't use FSE as it was clearly updated by Mont'ka. Or we use the pure RaW aporoach in which case FSE was not updated by Mont'ka but is also unfortunately unusable due to having no RaW way to make a FSE detachment.
How is it Common Sense if it is an opinion? It can be easily argued that its "common sense" that these are just new Formations and unique detachments for a currently exisiting army (which makes sense why the Campaign Books are listed under "Expansions" on GW). There is no proof of Campaign/Warzone Books negating Codex or Supplement Options otherwise White Scars and Raven Guard would be in the same position as the Farsight Enclaves as well as Tyranids and Blood Angels. It makes more "common sense" that these are different options to run an army, not a direct replacement otherwise the armies mentioned would be as adversely effected as the Farsight Enclaves. Also it was "Codex: Eldar Craftworlds" that replaced Codex: Eldar, not a Campaign Warzone book which is what the discussion topic origionates from so that logic does not apply here, it was a Codex replacing a Codex.
FlingitNow wrote: Only in the sections it tells you to do that! You can't take half a sentence and apply it. Otherwise at the start of the game were you deploy 2nd I'll declare myself the winner as you have no models on the table...
Funny thing is that "section" is also the same section that has the the quote I provided...sorry your wrong again.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2015/12/26 16:40:50
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
Grizzyzz wrote: 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 have a 30 second conversation with your opponent and tell them which rules source you're using.
How do I put down a Tactical Squad and not have my opponent question me since Blood Angels and Space Marines provide different rules? Same answer. I tell him which rules I'm using.
Exactly.. thanks for solving the entire debate of this thread as it stands right now
The really funny part is that ALL of these things, codices, supplements, and campaign books, are all nothing but expansions of the Warhammer 40,000 game system.
But yeah, Kriswall's point is perfectly valid. Communication is key in this.
Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
You believe that it clearly updates it, but without any direct written word, it is not clear, it is assumed. Then you say that in RAW games you can't pick and choose, implying that by RAW, Mont'ka replaces FSE.
And no, common sense was not need to be able to use FSE in the first place, that is only an assumption on your part.
Nice try at again lying about my argument. It clearly updates the FSE supplement just as Codex: Craftworlds clearly updates Codex: Eldar. Yet neither states it. The point on using RaW is you have to use it or commonsense. You can't claim common sense to allow the FSE to work when RaW it doesn't then flip to hardline RaW to claim Mont'ka doesn't replace it...
I also note how you clipped my post to remove context too...
You believe that it clearly updates it, but without any direct written word, it is not clear, it is assumed. Then you say that in RAW games you can't pick and choose, implying that by RAW, Mont'ka replaces FSE.
And no, common sense was not need to be able to use FSE in the first place, that is only an assumption on your part.
Nice try at again lying about my argument. It clearly updates the FSE supplement just as Codex: Craftworlds clearly updates Codex: Eldar. Yet neither states it. The point on using RaW is you have to use it or commonsense. You can't claim common sense to allow the FSE to work when RaW it doesn't then flip to hardline RaW to claim Mont'ka doesn't replace it...
I also note how you clipped my post to remove context too...
And i also love how you just ignored the last 4 posts that all mention that GW still sells FSE codex... lol
FlingitNow wrote: Nice try at again lying about my argument. It clearly updates the FSE supplement just as Codex: Craftworlds clearly updates Codex: Eldar. Yet neither states it. The point on using RaW is you have to use it or commonsense. You can't claim common sense to allow the FSE to work when RaW it doesn't then flip to hardline RaW to claim Mont'ka doesn't replace it...I also note how you clipped my post to remove context too...
It is a Codex updating a Codex, this is completely different. Since when has any Campaign or Warzone Book ever replaced a Codex or a Supplement? Answer the question where is your proof, and according to your logic does that mean White Scars and Raven Guard have to be taken out of Kauyon only now because of the rules they have in there? You are the one lacking Common Sense here, despite all the evidence we have proven to the contrary (and you continually ignore) you continue to try and has an assumption as "common sense".
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2015/12/26 17:34:59
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
FlingitNow wrote: Only in the sections it tells you to do that! You can't take half a sentence and apply it. Otherwise at the start of the game were you deploy 2nd I'll declare myself the winner as you have no models on the table...
Yeah, those are the best kind of games!
notredameguy10 wrote: just give it up already jeez lol. As of right now they still sell FSE codex. That should be indication enough that it is still usable.
How is it Common Sense if it is an opinion? It can be easily argued that its "common sense" that these are just new Formations and unique detachments for a currently exisiting army (which makes sense why the Campaign Books are listed under "Expansions" on GW). There is no proof of Campaign/Warzone Books negating Codex or Supplement Options otherwise White Scars and Raven Guard would be in the same position as the Farsight Enclaves as well as Tyranids and Blood Angels. It makes more "common sense" that these are different options to run an army, not a direct replacement otherwise the armies mentioned would be as adversely effected as the Farsight Enclaves. Also it was "Codex: Eldar Craftworlds" that replaced Codex: Eldar, not a Campaign Warzone book which is what the discussion topic origionates from so that logic does not apply here, it was a Codex replacing a Codex.
Sorry but how are White Scars etc even remotely comparable to the situation being discussed? Those are codexes that are having rules added to them by the Campaign supplement, those rules don't function without the codex. The fact you keep repeating this tired debunked argument without even attempting to consider the pounts raised against it illustrates that you know the argument has no weight. Thus if you repeat it again I'll have to assume you are trolling and take that as your concession.
Funny thing is that "section" is also the same section that has the the quote I provided...sorry your wrong again.
So what section is that quote in? What sections does the FAQ cover?
FlingitNow wrote: Sorry but how are White Scars etc even remotely comparable to the situation being discussed? Those are codexes that are having rules added to them by the Campaign supplement, those rules don't function without the codex.
sorry, can you step back and consider what you just said? THEY ARE PRECISELY THE SAME THING!!!
'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
FlingitNow wrote: Sorry but how are White Scars etc even remotely comparable to the situation being discussed? Those are codexes that are having rules added to them by the Campaign supplement, those rules don't function without the codex.
sorry, can you step back and consider what you just said? THEY ARE PRECISELY THE SAME THING!!!
Sorry what? In one case we have a campaign book that gives new rules for a codex but requires the codex in order to function. In the other we have a Codex that was being added to by a supplement and now have a campaign book that adds to the codex in the same way and regarding the same subject (Farsight Enclaves). You don't need the Farsight Enclaves book to utilise Mont'ka and Mobt'ka makes no reference to it. I'm not sure why you think it does?
Of course when it comes to Space Marines its a double standard why am I not surprised, it is the same scenario with an extra step. The Farsight Enclaves book as I've stated multiple times uses the rules and list found in Codex: Tau Empire which still exists. There is nothing that invalidates it in the Campaign Book therefore there is nothing stopping me from taking a Detachment (which FAQ fixed for 7th) from the Supplement which is still available for purchase in all GW stores. Also it is not the same, Mont'ka adds a new Detachment and Formations for the Farsight Enclaves which still needs Codex: Tau Empire to function. Biggest reason here is if it was invalidated they would not keep selling it or have it available to purchase, its not that hard to understand.
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
2015/12/27 00:30:59
Subject: Re:The Farsight Supplement is Still Legal
gmaleron wrote: Of course when it comes to Space Marines its a double standard why am I not surprised, it is the same scenario with an extra step. The Farsight Enclaves book as I've stated multiple times uses the rules and list found in Codex: Tau Empire which still exists. There is nothing that invalidates it in the Campaign Book therefore there is nothing stopping me from taking a Detachment (which FAQ fixed for 7th) from the Supplement which is still available for purchase in all GW stores. Also it is not the same, Mont'ka adds a new Detachment and Formations for the Farsight Enclaves which still needs Codex: Tau Empire to function. Biggest reason here is if it was invalidated they would not keep selling it or have it available to purchase, its not that hard to understand.
How is it a double standard? The campaign book rules function as supplements function not as Codexes function. The Campaign book gives full rules on how to field FSE detachments, it is not rocket science to work out that this thus supercedes old FSE detachment rules.
RaW FSE Supplement doesn't work. So if you want to use it at all you need to use common sense, pleading common sense for your supplement to work then switching to hardline RaW to ignore the fact that it has been updated in a Campaign Supplement is abut rich to say the least. Either go RaW and no FSE Supplement detachments can ever exist, or go RaI and the FSE Supplement gas been superceded by Mont'ka. Either way no FSE Supplement.
19th Krieg Siege Army 7500pts.
40k/HH Night Lords 5000pts.
Orks Waaaghmacht Spearhead 2500pts.
2500 
2200 
