Supplements and Factions

[shamsael]

Can someone explain to me what about Supplements, and them being considered the same faction as the parent codex, is confusing enough to warrant special rulings for competitive 40k?

The wording in the Big Rule Book says that you can take units available to your faction, and supplements are considered to be part of their Codex's faction. I haven't seen the two Space Marine supplements, but there are no new units described in the other three supplements. There is nothing in Iyanden, Black Legion or Crimson slaughter that the wording in the BRB would suggest are available to Eldar or CSM. The wording in Farsight Enclaves is ambiguous, but as there is no proper army list entry for The Eight, it seems to me that they are presented as a replacement to Farsight's command team option. All of the Supplement's I've read contain language to the effect that a detachment is either, for example, a Chaos Space Marines detachment or a Crimson Slaughter detachment and benefits like force org swaps and wargear choices specifically apply to Crimson Slaughter detachments. While the BRB would allow the Chaos Space Marines to take any units it wants from the Crimson Slaughter book, there ARE no units in the Crimson Slaughter book! If, hypothetically, a new supplement was released that actually contained new army list entries, those would presumably be available to a Chaos Space Marines detachment as well as any of the supplemental detachments.

So what are people so confused about?

EDIT:
The Farsight Enclaves FAQ speicifically explains that The Eight are only available as a replacement to Farsighight's Crisis Bodyguards.

[Caitsidhe]

Can someone explain to me what about Supplements, and them being considered the same faction as the parent codex, is confusing enough to warrant special rulings for competitive 40k?

The wording in the Big Rule Book says that you can take units available to your faction, and supplements are considered to be part of their Codex's faction. I haven't seen the two Space Marine supplements, but there are no new units described in the other three supplements. There is nothing in Iyanden, Black Legion or Crimson slaughter that the wording in the BRB would suggest are available to Eldar or CSM. The wording in Farsight Enclaves is ambiguous, but as there is no proper army list entry for The Eight, it seems to me that they are presented as a replacement to Farsight's command team option. All of the Supplement's I've read contain language to the effect that a detachment is either, for example, a Chaos Space Marines detachment or a Crimson Slaughter detachment and benefits like force org swaps and wargear choices specifically apply to Crimson Slaughter detachments. While the BRB would allow the Chaos Space Marines to take any units it wants from the Crimson Slaughter book, there ARE no units in the Crimson Slaughter book! If, hypothetically, a new supplement was released that actually contained new army list entries, those would presumably be available to a Chaos Space Marines detachment as well as any of the supplemental detachments.

So what are people so confused about?

Well, until a Faq says otherwise, you can take Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter as an Allied Detachment that happens to be "Battle Brothers." This is because Codex trumps the basic rule book. Said Supplements specifically say you can take them as allies. This might change in time. For now you can take them as Combined Arms Detachments or Allied Detachments or the reverse if they are your primary and you want to have basic CSM come in as the add on.

The other part of your question is simple, both Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter are identical to basic Chaos Space Marines except for the limited rules and units they list are different. That means you use all the rules from Chaos Space Marines unless they note otherwise. People are confused because per standard operating procedure for Games Workshop, the wording is often misleading. I've read the basic rule book well over a dozen times now and even I think the rules on how an army is put together can be confusing. It has sparked many arguments. Some believe you can only take detachments from your own faction as Combined Arms Detachments, while other say you can opt for Combined Arms or Allied. Some say you can only take some from your own Faction as Combined Arms unless (as in Black Legion and Crimson Slaughter) the Codex says otherwise.

There are literally a ton of places where people can (and do) get confused.

[shamsael]

When the codex specifically contradicts the rule book, and no FAQ corrects the codex, the codex is correct. The big rule book says you can't, in general, ally a supplement to its own Codex. SOME specific codexes say otherwise.

Again, why is this confusing people? It seems extremely straightforward to me.


BAO and NOVA both concluded that per the Rules as Written (RAW), a Detachment in 7th (either Combined Arms Detachment (CAD) or Allied)is built from a Faction, not a Codex. This is a substantial change from long-standing 40K tradition (BRB 118).

A CAD is built of units that are the same Faction (BRB 122)

A Codex and a Codex Supplement are considered the same Faction (BRB 118)


Therefore, a CAD may be built using units from both a Codex and a Codex Supplement.
Logical? Yes. RAW? Yes. Convoluted and confusing? Yes. When you create a “Blended CAD” (BCAD)using units from a Codex and Supplements (sometimes multiple Supplements) it creates bizarre rules situations, difficult modeling clarity issues for opponents, and – quite simply – confusion. This can result in unpleasant games and unwittingly illegal lists at the Organized Play level.

The organizers of these events are concerned that a CSM player will take units from his supplements. The problem with this is that there are no supplements that provide new units.

[Caitsidhe]

When the codex specifically contradicts the rule book, and no FAQ corrects the codex, the codex is correct. The big rule book says you can't, in general, ally a supplement to its own Codex. SOME specific codexes say otherwise.

Again, why is this confusing people? It seems extremely straightforward to me.



The organizers of these events are concerned that a CSM player will take units from his supplements. The problem with this is that there are no supplements that provide new units.

What they are actually concerned about is my taking Black Legion as an Allied Detachment for a single HQ and a single Troop choice to bring in the Eye of Night or whatnot. I do in fact use the current rule in the codex to run a third HQ for a cost of another Troop. I either run another Cultists unit if I'm short on points or a Chosen unit. Sometimes I bring in another Daemon Prince and sometimes a stripped down Sorcerer with ML-3 and the eye of night.

[shamsael]

What they are actually concerned about is my taking Black Legion as an Allied Detachment for a single HQ and a single Troop choice to bring in the Eye of Night or whatnot. I do in fact use the current rule in the codex to run a third HQ for a cost of another Troop. I either run another Cultists unit if I'm short on points or a Chosen unit. Sometimes I bring in another Daemon Prince and sometimes a stripped down Sorcerer with ML-3 and the eye of night.

I think you're misunderstanding.

In 6th Edition, a CSM army could take a single Crimson Slaughter or Black Legion HQ and Troop unit as an allied detachment to gain access to the supplement's wargear (on the allied HQ). 7th has not changed this, and the BAO/NOVA rules don't change this either.



Allied Detachments may be selected from the same Faction as the Primary Detachment. - See more at: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/06/19/early-7th-ed-tournament-guidelines-for-nova-and-bao/#sthash.IrHVR7td.dpuf


Also...


When you create a “Blended CAD” (BCAD)using units from a Codex and Supplements (sometimes multiple Supplements) it creates bizarre rules situations, difficult modeling clarity issues for opponents, and – quite simply – confusion. This can result in unpleasant games and unwittingly illegal lists at the Organized Play level. - See more at: http://www.frontlinegaming.org/2014/06/19/early-7th-ed-tournament-guidelines-for-nova-and-bao/#sthash.IrHVR7td.dpuf


Again, it's impossible to take a "Blended CAD" using units from a Codex and Supplements because none of the supplements that have been released contain units!

[Charon]

Again, it's impossible to take a "Blended CAD" using units from a Codex and Supplements because none of the supplements that have been released contain units!

You could run a CSM force with posessed and an allied detatchment of crimson slaughter with posessed. Both follow different rules which could be hard to keep track of.

[shamsael]

You could run a CSM force with posessed and an allied detatchment of crimson slaughter with posessed. Both follow different rules which could be hard to keep track of.

But the Nova/BAO rules don't prevent this. In fact, they explicitly ALLOW this!

The Blended CAD they're referring to is a mythological beast: a single Combined Arms Detachment containing both CSM Elite Possessed and CS Troop Possessed. They seem to be operating under the misconception that there is a duplicate army list entry for Possessed in the Crimson Slaughter supplement with TROOP as their battlefield role instead of ELITE. There is no such entry. Rather, there is a set of rules that applies only to a Crimson Slaughter detachment, one of which allows Possessed to be taken as Troops.

[John Bower]

But surely like with the Imperium Faction = Codex, so no CS or BL are not part of the CSM faction; that is its own book. you would have to take separate detachments for each but otherwise yes they would be battle brothers because they are at heart all CSM. But you can't take them in the same detachment.

[Caitsidhe]

Heh. Look, there is one more unspoken rule. The TO is always right. When you decide to go to a tournament, you are agreeing to play by the rules the TO sets up. It may be they understand the rules just fine, but don't like them.

[shamsael]

Heh. Look, there is one more unspoken rule. The TO is always right. When you decide to go to a tournament, you are agreeing to play by the rules the TO sets up. It may be they understand the rules just fine, but don't like them.

The TO is right. What's curious here is that it seems the TO is implementing a new rule because he doesn't understand the RAW. The new rule being implemented is almost the same as the RAW, but worded differently. If the guidelines simply said "You are limited to 1 Combined Arms Detachment and Up to 1 Allied detachment" they would accomplish the exact same thing as what they seem to be going for. All of the extra stuff about Blended CADs is pointless, since there is no rule in any of the books that permits a Blended CAD.

EDIT: The tournament guidelines, in the end, are sound. What I'm getting at, and the reason this concerns me, is that Reece is considered an authoritative source in the community, and his tournament guidelines are implying that standard RAW 7th Edition 40k allows something degenerate like a Blended CAD, when it doesn't. It's what these guidelines say about non-competitive 40k that has me worried.