BoLS Lounge : Wargames, Warhammer & Miniatures Forum
Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 16 of 16
  1. #11
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Durham, NH
    Posts
    5,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by daboarder View Post
    of course you don't,

    But that reads more like you just expect armies to have double standards.

    there is no relationship between INQ and Knights, by your logic then they cannot be in the same army either

    to the OP:

    What all this should tell you is that no body really knows, its a mess. ask TO's and go with what your regular mates say
    its not a mess. It is 2nd Edition. ANYTHING GOES!
    QUOTE Jwolf: "Besides, Tynskel isn't evil, he's just drawn that way. "

  2. #12
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Durham, NH
    Posts
    5,547

    Default

    Go double posting!!!

    Quote Originally Posted by daboarder View Post
    of course you don't,

    But that reads more like you just expect armies to have double standards.

    there is no relationship between INQ and Knights, by your logic then they cannot be in the same army either

    to the OP:

    What all this should tell you is that no body really knows, its a mess. ask TO's and go with what your regular mates say
    its not a mess. It is 2nd Edition. ANYTHING GOES!
    QUOTE Jwolf: "Besides, Tynskel isn't evil, he's just drawn that way. "

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by zenjah View Post
    That does seem to muddy the waters on how to treat Armies with more than 2 detachments.

    But while Knights + Inquisition is ambiguous for that reason, I don't think that IG + Chaos + Knights is ambiguous at all.

    Come the Apocalypse -- "this kind of alliance cannot occur" is pretty clear.

    No matter how many detachments you have in an army they each have some sort of relationship to each other. It is nonsense to claim that 2 of the detachments in a single army are "not allied." When the relationship between two factions in the same army spells out clearly that it "cannot occur," that is pretty clear.
    But then when you read Apocalypse... It CAN occur. Hell in Apoc even nids can ally with anyone. I don't have a problem with any allies, I think people take the allies rules far to strictly, even in the BRB GW state that you can still use Come the Apocalypse allies with your opponent's agreement, just come up with a suitable reason for the alliance. I think Traitor Knights is more than just a 'suitable' reason for it, it's downright narrative.
    Astra Miliwotsit? You're in the Guard now son....

  4. #14

    Default

    I just hope GW make a special updated Chaos Knight miniature (with Chaos Symbols on it), EBook Codex, or release something like Hell Knights, and other Fallen Slaanesh Knight Titans to allow heretics and anti-Imperial generals like myself to field something other than the expensive 888 point Super heavy tank with a Chaos warrior on the front, that is not worth the points it costs.
    Funnily enough, notice that anything Imperial isn't actually sculpted onto the model.
    Red like roses, fills my dreams and brings me to the place where you rest...

  5. #15
    Chapter-Master
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Durham, NH
    Posts
    5,547

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tzeentch's Dark Agent View Post
    Funnily enough, notice that anything Imperial isn't actually sculpted onto the model.
    Because Knights are not Knights of the Imperium.
    QUOTE Jwolf: "Besides, Tynskel isn't evil, he's just drawn that way. "

  6. #16

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Tynskel View Post
    Because Knights are not Knights of the Imperium.
    Erm, technicalleeee they are. Imperial Knights, it's in the title....
    Astra Miliwotsit? You're in the Guard now son....

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •