Farsight Supllement Befuddlement

Just a few quick questions on the Farsight Supplement Book.

1. If you have some of the tau signature systems from the original book by taking members of Farsight's command team, can allied tau take the same systems?

2. Farsight Supplement states you cannot take Aun'va or Shadowsun in the army. Can you use either of them in an allied detachment? Or if you are using tau as the primary can you take Aun'va and still ally in the Farsight Enclave?

As my general understanding is, allies are a second army (as they always come from a different codex), and should generally be able to operate without much restriction from the Primary Detachment. That being said, with this being a Codex Supplement rather than a full out Codex, I can't say for certain on the second one, but you should be good to go on the first, I think.

#1 I would have to check the wording for Signature Systems because I believe it specifies "per army" not "per detachment".

#2 It says army, not detachment. If something is not allowed in your army you cannot take it in any part (including allied detachments).

Aegwymourn wrote:#1 I would  have to check the wording for Signature Systems because I believe it specifies "per army" not "per detachment".

#2 It says army, not detachment. If something is not allowed in your army you cannot take it in any part (including allied detachments).

That would be quite the interesting precedence if you consider that the Farsight supplement states that all XV8 battlesuits in your army are considered troop choices. Does that mean an allied tau army would be able to take troop crisis suits as well?

With the way the rules are written I would have to say yes.

For reference here is specific blurb "ALLIED DETACHMENTS - If you wish, your army can include one allied detachment for each primary detachment in your army( normally one, but if you'r playing a larger game this might be two)." pg 174 of the digital rulebook.

Honestly I don't see why it would be that big of a deal. Crisis Suits are not that amazing. A very expensive two wound marine with some special weapons isn't anything to write home about.

Alrighty, now is where things get complicated.

First off, the counterblurb from the same section. "Bear in mind different combinations of armies and allies are more effective (and more eagerly entered into) than others". Same section referencing that allied attachments could in fact be considered separate armies. Your quote also doesn't state that the allied attachment isn't its own army, it merely specifies that you get one attachment per primary detachment in your army. Its ambiguous either way.

In addition if it is in fact your primary force that determines your army, then its also possible that by playing a tau army with farsight allies, you would NOT get the farsight special rules because they are only used when you are playing a farsight army specifically.

It is a separate army list. So limitations imposed on a detachment are not imposed upon the other detachment.

so the answer is yes. you can double up on signature stuff or units that exist in both lists.

how many repeat plays one gets once such a list is fielded is up for debate.

I don't think that statement changes the previous quote since it is essentially referencing the allies matrix. Hence the ridiculous hyphenated sentence.

Also another quote from further on from "Biggar Games"

"in this case, your Warlord can be from either of the primary detachments in your army." pg 174 digital codex.

You are talking about the primary detachments again. Obviously the primary attachments are part of your army. The problem is it never states the allied attachments are considered the same army. As for the allies matrix, why would it say "armies and allies" if it was just referring to the allies matrix? In that case it could have said the exact same thing by saying "different combinations of allies are more effective".

Oh, and while we are on the subject of supplement rules, can somebody tell me what kind of drone Commander Brightsword's Warscaper drone is?

If they feel that your two primary detachments form a part of your army, then obviously the allied detachment form a part of the same army. At least that is how I am interpreting those two statements.

That is exactly what I understand that paragraph to mean. It is in its entirety poorly worded. In my humble opinion they could have just said "oh by the way there is an allies matrix that shows you which codecii are allowed as allied detachments depending upon your codex for your primary detachment, and how the allied detachment interacts with you primary detachment".

Also in the fortification section it says "They might not be things your army has constructed itself..." pg 174 another example that anything you take, even things not included in the primary detachment (per the diagram on page 174) are still considered part of the same "army".

Also if we look under the HQ section (back a bit) it says "... a character from one of the army's HQ units must be nominated as the army's Warlord" pg172. If we were to take each detachment as its own "army" you would have multiple warlords each leading one.

Further along we see Allies "From a gaming point of view, taking allies in your army opens up new tactical possiblities, amking your already formidable force even more so" pg 177.

I will admit there is a bit of ambiguity either way. I still think there is more evidence that shows that anything you select from any detachment/fortification is considered the same "army".

I know there is plenty of wordplay either way, which is why I'm asking rather than assuming. And while it seems like popular vote already says that an allied attachment is considered a different army for the purposes of rule restrictions, I will pose one other reason of why I believe the allied detachments probably shouldn't count as part of the same army.

Farsight's Enclave specifically states that it can ally with tau. BUT if you have to apply the rules from that book to the Tau part of the army it turns the tau part into a carbon copy of the Farsight Enclave. You could even use the HQ slot from the Tau force org to take the Farsight Command Squad given that taking it is a rule that applies to Farsight Enclave armies. There is literally no rule from the supplement that does not carry over.

So I ask why they would let Farsight ally with what would then amount to an army from the exact same codex, something that is expressly forbidden in the allies rules? At that point you would just be playing a 3 HQ, 8 Troops, 4 of everything else force org farsight list no matter who the primary detachment and allied detachment originally was. Badly written rulebooks aside this concept is in direct violation of the of the ally rules. If there are examples supporting both sides of the argument one should probably go with the side that follows the intent of the rules.

Well from my understanding there is only the one section you quoted entering any ambiguity as far as I can see. Do you happen to see any other quotes that would support the idea that each detachment is functionally its own army?

I don't see how anyone other than Farsight can take either of his unique bodyguard teams. Both are conditional clauses specifically for Farsight. I don't have an e-copy of Codex: Tau Empire, but in the Farsight Enclaves it says "When choosing a Farsight Enclaves army with Commmander Farsight as its Warlord, you may take Farsight's Commander Team instead of Farsight's XV8 Crisis Bodyguard Team". So I don't see how anyone else other than Farsight could take it.

"When choosing a Farsight Enclaves Army, you have access to a special unit called Farsights Command Team"

Farsight does not have to be your warlord to use this, but more importantly its a special rule for when you are taking Farsight with a Farsight Enclave army. Since Farsight can be taken as an HQ choice for either Tau or Farsight, and since your argument is any army based special rules apply to the whole army and not just the detachment the rule comes from, then your Tau side of the army can take Farsight as one of its HQs and use this rule.

Do you have a page number for your quote. The only one I see on my digital version is the one I quotes which specifies not only Farsight as your Warlord, but also that it replaces his standard bodyguard team.

I don't have the digital version of the book myself, I'm just using some forum posted copies of the book. They could be out of date or wrong but until they release a copy I can actually purchase its all I got. According to their digital copy they used page 88. Not saying its accurate, just saying its all I could find.

I left out the part about replacing the bodyguard unit as it didn't seem relevant to our conversation and that whole rules section is kind of long. If the one I'm looking at is incorrect about the warlord thing though it does not change my point. You could still take Farsight as your warlord in the Tau part, not the Farsight
part if you believe that army rules carry over.

As for other quotes against detachments being part of the army page 108 under "The Army List" "With the points limit agreed, players need to pick their forces. The best way to do this is to make use of the army list in the relevant codex", and same page under "Force Organisation" "As detailed in each armies codex..."
Both of these imply strongly that when you are making an army list it comes from your codex. Adding in allies from a different codex would then imply they are not the same army.

Yes the forum post you have is incorrect. The quote I used is from the current version of the e-book (the first version had a large number of grammatical and spelling errors. Including that you "must take Shadowsun and Aun'va in your army"). And either way if you wanted to replace Farsight's command team as a selection from Codex: Tau Empire while taking Farsight Enclave allies would it really matter? The eight are not particularly powerful, unless you continue your reasoning trying to get multiples of signature systems since an allied detachment would count as a new army to pull from (this would also include second primary detachments). Since any of the good ones could quickly unbalance a game (namely the MS3 and CNC).

As for you first quote, you will notice in each new codex (not sure of the old ones) there is a section called "army list" poor choice of words, but they are specifically referencing that section inside the relevant codecii.

The second I will admit does help your case but I would imagine they didn't think to use an alternate word such as force or race since once again they are referencing a section within the specific codex rather than the structure of the game itself.

Again, my opinions.

The reason why I bring up the 8 is just an example that there isn't a single rule in the Farsight supplement that wouldn't carry over. I'm saying that if you are correct and the allies are considered part of the army then all the rules from Farsight's Enclave would make the tau half of your army identical in every single way. There wouldn't be any difference and therefore would result in Farsights codex effectively allying with itself. I don't think they would specifically allow Farsight to ally with Tau if it would just turn the tau into more Farsight.

Also in no way shape or form am I arguing that extra primary detachments give more one/army wargear. No matter how many primary detachments you add you are still limited to one, and no matter how many allied attachments you have they are still limited to 1 of any of their 1/army wargear.

Lastly, you cannot read into the intent of specific rules wording from the main book as it applies to this because this scenario was not possible until the Farsight supplement came out. Because there is no definition of the word army and the word is used in several different ways in the main rulebook its impossible to garner whether or not they are meant to apply to this scenario. This means we are left with merely common sense (and I will agree this differs from person to person), which in my mind is not making a Farsight list gain free force org using rules that in every other example are designed specifically to not do that.

Perhaps their reasoning is that in the Farsight Enclaves one of the ideas they suggest is running Farsight whilst he was at the high point in his career with the Tau Empire. In which way they would function exactly the same as his standard Enclave army. It is right after the portion allowing the use as Battle Brother allies called "Forging a Narrative". In which case it actually is the same book effectively allying itself. Again which I don't think would cause any undo concern unless you were allowed to take "one per army" items more than once. If you are not (as I suggest) then I don't see any issues.

The issue is no other codex in 40k can do that with the ally rules. Narrative or no narrative there isn't a reason why Farsight can break the rules that every other codex is supposed to follow. Why can't Eldrad, one of the highest ranking eldar, take more than the standard force org in Eldar? Narrative wise it doesn't make any sense.

You really want me to try and explain why GW wrote the rules the way they did? Nobody except the people who actually wrote the rules has any idea of the true intentions behind them.

I have supplied all the quotes and reasoning I can along with my opinions. Those are the rules as I understand them. If we/you want to house rule it a different way I don't care. At the end of the day they are toy soldiers. But RAW, as I understand it, each army is made up of all the detachments (primary/allied/fortification) that are selected inside of it.

I don't understand what's going on anymore.

No doubling up on Signature systems. An army is a primary detachment.

The other argument about not needing Farsight for the Eight was changed in the digital version after release. It was FAQ'd, basically, saying that Farsight must be your warlord, which means he must be your primary detachment. The only way you get a second allied detachment is by doubling up the force org chart, still all the same "army". Any signature systems the Eight use cannot be doubled up. So "no" to having two multi-spectrum sensor suites, which is what you're after, I'm guessing.

The query is what constitutes your "army".

I am of the stance that any detachment (primary/allied/fortification/additional primary/etc.) included in your list is part of your "army".

From what I understand of Darksfear's stance is that each detachment is it's own "army".

Sigh...this is why we can't have nice things folks

All he's trying to do is get 2 Puretide Chips, Shadowsun, Farsight, assorted (IC and Troop) Crisis Suits, Drones and a Riptide in one mega death star unit. Just stop it already!!

P.S. I'd also agree that a player's "army" is made up of all the "detachments" he/she is using.

Wow, thanks miv. I was wondering how long it would take a rules discussion to become a flame war.

Anyways, lets get started with the simplest way to describe my belief on what constitutes an army. Just so there are no more misunderstandings I believe an army constitutes your forces from 1 codex. When you bring along another codex as allies, that codex has its own rules and restrictions that should not carry over to your primary detachment. Now this has never been a concern before since nobody could double up on the same codex. This is the first case of it and I wanted to check to see how other people read into it.

I wasn't originally going to even post here as I figured I could find the answer buried on the internet, but all I found were more questions and complications. So in the end I simply said screw it and went on the hunters boards to try and get a general consensus. As such I posted not the issue I was having, but merely the most complicated of the problems so that everything could be resolved at once and I would never have to bash my head against this issue again.

After about my third post I was just having fun in a discussion, as it seemed we had a majority on the subject.

Of course we have Miv here trying to accuse me of something I have no intention of using outside of maybe apocalypse (I got no superheavys so deathstar may be my only solution to those damn autokill destroyer weapons  ), so I now feel I have to share my reasoning for why this matters to me.

I already have a perfectly legitimate Farsight/Shadowsun list without using the Farsight Enclave book. When I read through that book what I wanted was NOT the 8 independent characters including a riptide and broadside. I still plan on using the same 7 crisis suit bodyguard I've always used. It was NOT doubling up on the signature systems from the Tau codex. I won't argue against the crisis suits as troops being nifty but I was taking them long before they were troops choices so no skin off my back.

What I personally hope to gain by playing a Farsight Enclave allied with Shadowsun if the rules allow it (which like I said is completely legit in and of itself without allies) is that damn warscaper drone and the talisman of arthas moloch. I am sick of playing a race with absolutely no psychic defense and would leap at the chance to add a little protection. And despite the fact that since 6th ed came I have not failed dangerous terrain tests in batches I am damn sick of rolling hundreds of damn dangerous terrain tests every single game. It just eats up so much time. That is entirely why I want to ally in the Farsight Enclave.

Lastly, I really have to ask what sets you guys off about the double wargear thing. A puretide chip is 15 points in the base rules. To get the second you have to buy Sha'Vastos for 174 points and hes got nothing on him that makes those point cost worth it. Torchstar's multi-spectrum sensor suite is 154 points. These are not viable expenses in a non-apocalypse game. I guess you can double use puretide chip so you always have stubborn in a deathstar unit but you know you can just stick a damn ethereal in it for 50 points and you accomplish the same goal. Plus you get other bonuses for it. So once again, I got no clue why you would even want to do it.

I think Mike was attempting to make light of the situation, but w/e. 

I already stated what I think the rules are. I haven't seen anything posted that would change my mind. 

If all you were after was the warscrapper drone and the Talisman why didn't you just ask for a PM of their rules. I would have gladly done up a quote earlier in the day since you apparently don't have access to the newer version of the e-book.