|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:31 am
Dubyamn Lt. Brookman What I meant to say was that the IG AC list cannot be used as allies for an Inquisition army. It's printed down somewhere in one of those docs, I'm pretty sure of it. Did they provide some reasoning for this ruling? because it's REALLY ******** beardy? neutral
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:36 am
nothing about it in the AC rules or the Witch Hunters Codex and FAQ
not only it it beardy but
Cheese Beardy Cheese.
in fact Chedda, but i still did it and no one contested it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 8:39 am
Mat nothing about it in the AC rules or the Witch Hunters Codex and FAQ not only it it beardy but Cheese Beardy Cheese. in fact Chedda, but i still did it and no one contested it I would. I'd be like "fine. you take that, i'm taking a Titan." Then it'd EAT you. mad
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Mon Mar 13, 2006 9:07 am
The best part was the Canoness I was running is my Dark Crusade Special Character
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 1:08 am
Oh ye fecking gods, not this again. Isn't the fifth time now that the same argument is being brought up, about an army of tanks being cheesy, beardy and unmanly? Repeating that over and over again is almost like trying to tell me that water is indeed wet.
Anyway, at least I'm happy to read that FW is generally accepted around here.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 3:30 am
Lt. Brookman Oh ye fecking gods, not this again. Isn't the fifth time now that the same argument is being brought up, about an army of tanks being cheesy, beardy and unmanly? Repeating that over and over again is almost like trying to tell me that water is indeed wet. Anyway, at least I'm happy to read that FW is generally accepted around here. It's not the Armored Company we have a problem with. It's allying them with Inquisitorial forces, predominantly CC forces that we have a problem with. It takes it from an interesting challenge to McMortimer CheeseBeard the Thirty-Second of Limburg.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 4:25 am
Ophiuchus Lt. Brookman Oh ye fecking gods, not this again. Isn't the fifth time now that the same argument is being brought up, about an army of tanks being cheesy, beardy and unmanly? Repeating that over and over again is almost like trying to tell me that water is indeed wet. Anyway, at least I'm happy to read that FW is generally accepted around here. It's not the Armored Company we have a problem with. It's allying them with Inquisitorial forces, predominantly CC forces that we have a problem with. It takes it from an interesting challenge to McMortimer CheeseBeard the Thirty-Second of Limburg. One page back I was stating that you can not ally an inquisitor army with an AC. If my head wasn't filled with cheddar I could tell the source straight away. Inquisitors can ONLY ally with normal marine and guard formations. No AC's.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 7:35 am
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Tue Mar 14, 2006 8:15 am
I didnt say that it was right or wrong just that i did it
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Wed Mar 15, 2006 4:51 pm
so im crussin the UK GW site and I see that the Tallarn range has been rereleased. Anyone know futher about that?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:48 am
Mat so im crussin the UK GW site and I see that the Tallarn range has been rereleased. Anyone know futher about that? They are just doing that to hype the Tau Empire into new heights, seeing as the Taros campaign pits the Tau against the Tallarn. (And Elysians, and several Asstartes chapters, such as the Red Scorpions)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 2:59 am
Lt. Brookman Mat so im crussin the UK GW site and I see that the Tallarn range has been rereleased. Anyone know futher about that? They are just doing that to hype the Tau Empire into new heights, seeing as the Taros campaign pits the Tau against the Tallarn. (And Elysians, and several Asstartes chapters, such as the Red Scorpions) The Tallarn are just a re-release in new packaging. Astartes Chapters like Red Scorpions seem a little crap to me. I'm a believer in the first founding, and then MAYBE Templars and Crimson Fists. I think Templars will be in this, seeing as they've had it good. I've seen the new Demon Prince of Nurgle, i hear there's new posessed and defilers, and Lucius the Eternal also. True?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 4:14 am
Why the ******** would they re-do defilers? They're a new and recent piece. Nothing wrong with 'em.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Thu Mar 16, 2006 5:13 am
A.R.G.U.S Mykal Lt. Brookman Mat so im crussin the UK GW site and I see that the Tallarn range has been rereleased. Anyone know futher about that? They are just doing that to hype the Tau Empire into new heights, seeing as the Taros campaign pits the Tau against the Tallarn. (And Elysians, and several Asstartes chapters, such as the Red Scorpions) The Tallarn are just a re-release in new packaging. Astartes Chapters like Red Scorpions seem a little crap to me. I'm a believer in the first founding, and then MAYBE Templars and Crimson Fists. I think Templars will be in this, seeing as they've had it good. I've seen the new Demon Prince of Nurgle, i hear there's new posessed and defilers, and Lucius the Eternal also. True? There are no minis for possesed models. You make em yourself using the spures or in the case of a Ironwarriors player like myself. Use every spare bionic bit and chainsword you can get ahold of
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: Fri Mar 17, 2006 1:01 am
The talk from above goes into another, more on topic thread.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Reply
