Kevin Milner
12/22/2007 4:11:00 PM
"Playa" <hurlgen40k@aol.com> wrote in message
news:6aac746c-806e-489c-8ee7-76bfd807115d@i72g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Hey,
>
> On Dec 21, 2:22 am, "Spack" <n...@worldofspack.co.uk> wrote:
>> "Playa" <hurlgen...@aol.com> wrote in message
>> > Check the box on p62: it's the "counts-as" rule. Both sentences.
>>
>> I did. It says "older or scratch built models that don't have rules
>
> Er, I was just holding it up as an example of a two-sentence rule.
>
>> > If there are no Allies rules, GW should just say so.
>> > If the rule is 'take anything', they should say so.
>>
>> > They gave 'counts-as' two sentences . . .
>>
>> Page 18, page 43, page 198. Allies did get more than 2 sentences
>
> I should have said, "adjacent sentences that aren't contradictory".
> As it is, every entry tells a different story:
>
> p198: (Allies Matrix) "Two armies ... Two armies ... Two armies ...
> ".
>
> Evidently, we can Ally two 40k armies.
>
> p43: Describes "Allying" a player's complete and partial armies.
>
> So, we can "Ally" one 40k army to *Units* from a second dex.
>
> p18: A player "Allies" his IG and Tau "collections" with a squad of
> Harlies.
>
> So, we can "Ally" collections, not armies, of Units from *three*
> dexes.
>
> p15: "Apocalypse battles don't require any changes to the core game
> rules".
>
> Heh. I just threw that one in there for comic relief . . .
>
> So, after all this sleuthing, just what *are* the 40kA Allies rules?
>
> 1. "Any number of players' 40kA-legal armies can be Allied to form a
> Side."
> 2. "40kA-legal armies are any collection of 40k-legal Units costed =/>
> 3kpt."
>
> A fair summary?
>
>
> Playa
>
In otherwords, "please for the love of god just buy some minis. we don't
care if they form a cohesive army any more. Just buy something. ANYTHING.
Have you seen our stock prices lately? Please. I have children in private
school."