2x FOC at 2000pts

[Haeslich]

Bah, three codices was a pipe dream

[Aryllon]

Now the example you gave is an interesting one. The problem lies with how the rule was written, but its intention is pretty clear. No farseer should be allowed.

I think we are just going to have to use our heads and police it ourselves until they make it 100% clear. As seen previously intention does not always get a look in.

Yep totally agree on both counts.


So it seems it's not a duplicate FOC within one Primary Detachment (raising the previous questions), instead you get a new FOC per Primary Detachment (or, per 2000 points). And each Primary must be from the same Codex.

Thus in the case of Bel Annath, his Primary Detachment has an extra heavy slot at the expense of 2 of the troop slots, but any other Primary Detachment in the same army is essentially a fresh army list drawn from the same Codex, using the standard FOC. And although it is not specified (there is no 'RAW'), we can assume special character effects apply at the 'Codex' level rather than at detachment level or army level.

So for example Vulkan's Chapter Tactics melta rule applies to all SM primary detachments in one army as they are taken from the same codex, despite being essentially separate army lists, but it does not apply to allied IG detachments as they come from a different Codex, despite being in the same army. Similarly, Bel Annath's 'no more farseers' rule applies to both his 'adjusted FOC' primary detachment and any other 'non-adjusted FOC' primary detachments in the same army - because both are from the same Codex.

This last bit is still part-assumption, but I just wanted to be comfortable with what most people are going to accept... before the debit card comes out

[Hulkster]

Yep totally agree on both counts.


So it seems it's not a duplicate FOC within one Primary Detachment (raising the previous questions), instead you get a new FOC per Primary Detachment (or, per 2000 points). And each Primary must be from the same Codex.

Thus in the case of Bel Annath, his Primary Detachment has an extra heavy slot at the expense of 2 of the troop slots, but any other Primary Detachment in the same army is essentially a fresh army list drawn from the same Codex, using the standard FOC. And although it is not specified (there is no 'RAW'), we can assume special character effects apply at the 'Codex' level rather than at detachment level or army level.

So for example Vulkan's Chapter Tactics melta rule applies to all SM primary detachments in one army as they are taken from the same codex, despite being essentially separate army lists, but it does not apply to allied IG detachments as they come from a different Codex, despite being in the same army. Similarly, Bel Annath's 'no more farseers' rule applies to both his 'adjusted FOC' primary detachment and any other 'non-adjusted FOC' primary detachments in the same army - because both are from the same Codex.

This last bit is still part-assumption, but I just wanted to be comfortable with what most people are going to accept... before the debit card comes out

Hmmm seen would disagree I would say that they would use the same style foc again. However, is this character from a fw book? If so is he from a new army list? At themomwnt if he is from a new
Army list I would say that you could add codex elder as a detachment.

But fw are still to update there lists so I would perhaps wait.

[Aryllon]

He is a FW character who is listed as a 'HQ choice for Codex Eldar' (i.e. not Corsairs). So he's in the same army list.

Edit: I should say, I'm not going to take him anyway! I'd rather lose the extra heavy/ies and benefit from being able to take more than one Farseer and also use the new psychic powers. I'm still left with 6 wraithlord slots, plus 1-3 Wraithseer HQ after all

[Hulkster]

That list sounds cool to be fair

[Haeslich]

The way it's worded in the book is 2k+ allows you an "additional" primary detachment. It says nothing about any kind of segregation, and even specifies double elite and HQ choices. The next paragraph states in bold letters the Warlord may come from either primary detachment. Following that reasoning it only makes sense that buffs and codex specific upgrades i.e. Vulkan's would apply to your second primary detachment (Logan Grimnar would allow you 12 units of Wolf Guard troops, by my reasoning).

Any tourney that I run for 6th edition will absolutely allow liberal application of dual FoCs and allies, using the main book's rules verbatim of course (a slight word change or misinterpretation can be game shaking with the detachment rules). Most at my LGS would call it powergaming, but meh, thats what I enjoy.

[Aryllon]

The way it's worded in the book is 2k+ allows you an "additional" primary detachment. It says nothing about any kind of segregation, and even specifies double elite and HQ choices. The next paragraph states in bold letters the Warlord may come from either primary detachment. Following that reasoning it only makes sense that buffs and codex specific upgrades i.e. Vulkan's would apply to your second primary detachment (Logan Grimnar would allow you 12 units of Wolf Guard troops, by my reasoning).

Any tourney that I run for 6th edition will absolutely allow liberal application of dual FoCs and allies, using the main book's rules verbatim of course (a slight word change or misinterpretation can be game shaking with the detachment rules). Most at my LGS would call it powergaming, but meh, thats what I enjoy.

Yeah, agree. As I said, RAW implies that rules should probably apply at Codex level, not detatchment (sub codex) or army (multi-codex) level. The line about 'additional primary detachment' rather than an expanded first primary detachment seals it for me.

Hence as we both say, Vulkan's melta rule would apply to both primary detachments in a single SM force - but I'd say it should not also apply to allied IG detachments because they're from a different codex, despite running within the same overall 'army'.

Similarly yeah, Grimnar + 12 Wolf Guard troops sounds totally legal (and frankly ridiculous!).

Edit: Aware of the irony of "RAW implies..."