Downloaded Codexes

[Erasmus of Baal]

Sound off, friends.

Are DH allies still allowed and why/why not?

[DarkLink]

Allowed. I see no reason why the posted codices would replace the actual book (or even could, because some of the rules are missing and not just allies).

They are just a convenient source of most of the rules, but the actual books are still valid.

Edit:
In fact, if the new pdf does override the actual codex, then the argument could be made that the Black Templar will be able to ally in an unlimited amount of GKs, as their codex states they may ally with Grey Knights (but no other type of psyker). The only limitations on the amount of allies was given in the allying rules in the DH and WH codices.

[BuFFo]

Of course Allies are allowed.

Why wouldn't they?

[Commissar Lewis]

My physical copy says they are allowed, so I'm still taking my Inquisitor Lord, his crew, and an assassin.

[setsunakai]

Inductions allowed allies are not

they took the time to edit and redo inductions and allies in the WH dex and the foreign versions of the DH dexes, so it is clearly intended unless they say otherwise

forgetting to put a FoC in the english version doesn't automaticly make it invalid and only a mouth breather would claim it does or correlate the 2 issues together

[rbryce]

personally, i dont have IG or GK, let alone as allies, but i really dont think that this is an update. I see 2 options for the missing pages:
1: monumental editing **** up of global proportions(at least if you live in an english speaking nation), that will be sorted when they realise.
2: Theyre still doing stuff to those pages.

I see 1 as more likely, as no-one in their right mind would put up a half finished piece on purpose. Its a clerical error, and if its not then ill be p*****, as, if they can take the time to nerf you guys, then they should have taken the time to fix points costs etc in both dexs. has anyone tried ringing GW to find out? if not, ill do it later. they have a customer services line right? or did it get edited out too? ;)

[Commissar Lewis]

Inductions allowed allies are not

they took the time to edit and redo inductions and allies in the WH dex and the foreign versions of the DH dexes, so it is clearly intended unless they say otherwise

forgetting to put a FoC in the english version doesn't automaticly make it invalid and only a mouth breather would claim it does or correlate the 2 issues together


Again, my actual, physical WH codex says I can take em as allies, so I'll do so until there is a concrete, other codex that says otherwise. I see this as a massive screwing of the pooch on GW's part, nothing more. Until they come out with a FAQ or clear, definitive, point-blank statement that allied Inquisition are no longer allowed in, say, Guard... I'm taking my damn allies.

[Erasmus of Baal]

Inductions allowed allies are not

they took the time to edit and redo inductions and allies in the WH dex and the foreign versions of the DH dexes, so it is clearly intended unless they say otherwise

forgetting to put a FoC in the english version doesn't automaticly make it invalid and only a mouth breather would claim it does or correlate the 2 issues together

Actually, the foreign-language versions still have allies, so I don't really think that they're taking the time to edit it in any serious capacity.

[karandras]

I see know reason why the PDFs would over-rule the actual hard copies of the codexes. I would still refer to the books themselves until a new book comes out to replace them.

[SotonShades]

As far as I can tell, these PDF codicies are a way of giving players the rules for DH and WH, without GW having to print the actual books that aren't selling. As such, they aren't a replacement of the old rules, just a new way to access them, and so the allies rules would still count, especially as they are still in the foreign language versions.

[Melissia]

Inductions allowed allies are not

they took the time to edit and redo inductions and allies in the WH dex and the foreign versions of the DH dexes, so it is clearly intended unless they say otherwise

forgetting to put a FoC in the english version doesn't automaticly make it invalid and only a mouth breather would claim it does or correlate the 2 issues together
They also CLEARLY took the time to remove the FoC for Grey Knights. So you can take an army made entirely of heavy support choices YAY!

[Aldramelech]

They also CLEARLY took the time to remove the FoC for Grey Knights. So you can take an army made entirely of heavy support choices YAY!

Did you just "Yay!"? You did didnt you?

Whats the world comming to?

[DarkLink]

forgetting to put a FoC in the english version doesn't automaticly make it invalid and only a mouth breather would claim it does or correlate the 2 issues together

If you use logic to deny allies, by virtue of that exact same logic you must admit that, by RAW, GKs would no longer have to follow the force org chart. Funny thing about logic; it has to be consistant.

[UltramarineFan]

They also CLEARLY took the time to remove the FoC for Grey Knights. So you can take an army made entirely of heavy support choices YAY!

I'm sorry but this entire argument is just DH and WH players b*tching because they can't take allies anymore. They've taken the rule out, in the newest version(ie the pdf, and lets not argue that the newest version is not the official one) and if they've taken it out then it's gone, no more allies. This argument about them losing their FOC as well is just stupid as the rulebook gives you that chart anyway, its doesn't need to be in the codex. You don't say that something can't move because the rules for moving aren't given in the rulebook, the same applies to the FOC, it just happens that codexes do include it, the lack of it does not mean that they do not have to obey it as it is laid down in the rulebook anyway.

No allies. End of.

[DarkLink]

Oh, and anyone who thinks allies aren't allowed is going to need to read this; http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=10500141a.

Allies are clearly still legal from GW's perspective.

[Faultie]

I'm sorry but this entire argument is just DH and WH players b*tching because they can't take allies anymore. They've taken the rule out, in the newest version(ie the pdf, and lets not argue that the newest version is not the official one) and if they've taken it out then it's gone, no more allies. This argument about them losing their FOC as well is just stupid as the rulebook gives you that chart anyway, its doesn't need to be in the codex. You don't say that something can't move because the rules for moving aren't given in the rulebook, the same applies to the FOC, it just happens that codexes do include it, the lack of it does not mean that they do not have to obey it as it is laid down in the rulebook anyway.

No allies. End of.

I'm sorry but this entire argument is just non-DH players b*tching because they haven't got a FOC anymore. They've taken the rules out, in the newest version (ie the pdf, and lets not argue that the newest version is not the official one) and if they've taken it out then it's gone, no more FOC. This argument about them losing their Allies as well is just stupid. Rulebook always overrides BRB.

No FOC. End of.

:P

[Commissar Lewis]

I'm sorry but this entire argument is just DH and WH players b*tching because they can't take allies anymore. They've taken the rule out, in the newest version(ie the pdf, and lets not argue that the newest version is not the official one) and if they've taken it out then it's gone, no more allies. This argument about them losing their FOC as well is just stupid as the rulebook gives you that chart anyway, its doesn't need to be in the codex. You don't say that something can't move because the rules for moving aren't given in the rulebook, the same applies to the FOC, it just happens that codexes do include it, the lack of it does not mean that they do not have to obey it as it is laid down in the rulebook anyway.

No allies. End of.


Well I'm still taking my Inquisitorial allies as my codex says it is allowed. If people give me grief, they can take it up with my legal counsel, the Count of Monty Fisto.

[Melissia]

And GW, when called, said to use the printed version because the pdf version was incomplete.

[Lord Azaghul]

And GW, when called, said to use the printed version because the pdf version was incomplete.

sometimes I think they make 'mistakes' on purpose, just to keep people taking.

[Old_Paladin]

This argument about them losing their FOC as well is just stupid as the rulebook gives you that chart anyway, its doesn't need to be in the codex... the same applies to the FOC, it just happens that codexes do include it, the lack of it does not mean that they do not have to obey it as it is laid down in the rulebook anyway.

You should actually read the rulebook on this section.
The chart shown is clearly stated as a common example; the rulebook tells you that you must refer to each individual codex for their exact FOC.

Seeing as Grey Knights are an elite force, they must be able to choose whatever they need (similar to the High Elf chart in fantasy).

RAW: GK can take whatever they want on the FOC... if that's the game people want to play;
but I think we can actually be reasonable about this (...maybe): everyone follows FOC and people that have the printed book get their allies and inductions (it's not hard and it's not complacated).

[BuFFo]

Pro .pdf camp - Use the English version over the codex because GW says so, even though we can find NO FACTS supporting anything on this position. we ignore the fact there is no FOC, but we still want you to not use allies. We never learned to read.

Con .pdf camp - The other language versions are complete Codices, yet only the English version is missing half the book, so obviously the English version is not usuable as it doesn't even have a FOC chart. Also, there is no GW 'errata' up stating that the online .pdfs are to be 'update' and/or 'replacements' to the printed codices. We can read!

School. Some of you need to attend more of it.

[Old_Paladin]

School. Some of you need to attend more of it.

Now that gave me a good laugh.

[DarkLink]

Seeing as Grey Knights are an elite force, they must be able to choose whatever they need (similar to the High Elf chart in fantasy).

That would be totally awesome:D



School. Some of you need to attend more of it.

This needs a good picture to make it into a demotivational poster

[DaveLL]

Pro .pdf camp - Use the English version over the codex because GW says so, even though we can find NO FACTS supporting anything on this position. we ignore the fact there is no FOC, but we still want you to not use allies. We never learned to read.

Con .pdf camp - The other language versions are complete Codices, yet only the English version is missing half the book, so obviously the English version is not usuable as it doesn't even have a FOC chart. Also, there is no GW 'errata' up stating that the online .pdfs are to be 'update' and/or 'replacements' to the printed codices. We can read!

School. Some of you need to attend more of it.
I disagree. I think it has more to do with which kind of screw-up you expect from GW: just a mistake, or a lazy attempt at removing a rule. I see either as entirely possible.

That said, I'll accept now that it probably was just a silly mistake. Maybe they should just download a scan of the codex that somebody else made, and post it.

[Leez]

I disagree. I think it has more to do with which kind of screw-up you expect from GW: just a mistake, or a lazy attempt at removing a rule. I see either as entirely possible.

That said, I'll accept now that it probably was just a silly mistake. Maybe they should just download a scan of the codex that somebody else made, and post it.

A rapid sharing of the old codexs if you get my drift.

[DarkLink]

I disagree. I think it has more to do with which kind of screw-up you expect from GW: just a mistake, or a lazy attempt at removing a rule. I see either as entirely possible.

That said, I'll accept now that it probably was just a silly mistake. Maybe they should just download a scan of the codex that somebody else made, and post it.

And then there's this: http://ottawagamer.blogspot.com/2010/06/deamonhunters-codex-answer-from.html

[Tynskel]

Has the .pdf codexes for Witch Hunters and Daemon Hunters been posted yet?

If so, where are they posted---- I do not find them under the errata/FAQs.

[UltramarineFan]

Con .pdf camp - The other language versions are complete Codices, yet only the English version is missing half the book, so obviously the English version is not usuable as it doesn't even have a FOC chart. Also, there is no GW 'errata' up stating that the online .pdfs are to be 'update' and/or 'replacements' to the printed codices. We can read!
.

Wow, hilarious. Now check said other languages. The inconstistency was temporary, they've changed at least the french and spanish versions that were online, that had the allies stil there at first, they have now been corrected to not include allies. We can read more than once!

[UltramarineFan]

Oh, and anyone who thinks allies aren't allowed is going to need to read this; http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=10500141a.

Allies are clearly still legal from GW's perspective.

Um...all that mentions are stormtroopers and they are part of the army list anyway,they're not allies, so what's your point?

[Old_Paladin]

We can read more than once!

That's good,
so you've read Ottawa Gamer, or Mel's post, or one of the other sites showing the email from Mr. Hollingsworth that stats it was just a mistake and that (in North America at least) allies are still completely legal from GW's point of view.

[UltramarineFan]

That's good,
so you've read Ottawa Gamer, or Mel's post, or one of the other sites showing the email from Mr. Hollingsworth that stats it was just a mistake and that (in North America at least) allies are still completely legal from GW's point of view.

Yep, I've read that now and I am even more confused, put that alonside the reports that the french version did contain the allies rules and if you check it now it doesn't. So it's we've got a report that it's a mistake with evidence of them actively removing it from the pdf. :confused:

[addamsfamily36]

That's good,
so you've read Ottawa Gamer, or Mel's post, or one of the other sites showing the email from Mr. Hollingsworth that stats it was just a mistake and that (in North America at least) allies are still completely legal from GW's point of view.

As much as i don;t agree or disagree that allies are gone or nt (if someone has the WH or DH codex then i'm not gonna rgue with them), but this email isn't really valid proof:

reasons

1 - easy to forge an email, anyone with photoshop could do it
2 - why does the email start talking about tournaments when the question was just about which rules do you use.
3- it's not an official statement jsut a customer services opinion

either way

The Interesting point to note is this.

If you have the codex (full version and paid for) then i say perfectly entitled to use those rules unless GW specifically states the new PDf is an update - which they haven't said.

However what if your a new player to Wh or Dh?

No FOC? an new player could be confused, but most people know how 40k works and every army uses FOC.

as for allies, say i picked up a WH or DH army tomorrow and downloaded the codex, what would i do?

[BuFFo]

Wow, hilarious. Now check said other languages. The inconstistency was temporary, they've changed at least the french and spanish versions that were online, that had the allies stil there at first, they have now been corrected to not include allies. We can read more than once!

Great then!

No FOC Charts!!!!

Even more broke than when the codex DID have allies lol!

This is what you wanted, right?

[Erasmus of Baal]

Has the .pdf codexes for Witch Hunters and Daemon Hunters been posted yet?

If so, where are they posted---- I do not find them under the errata/FAQs.

Under the background for the respective army.

[Tynskel]

Yay! No more allies! w00t!

Oh, and you guys are being silly about the FOC--- the main rulebook has that stuff. Everything in the Daemonhunters book is labeled which section it comes from.

I can actually Drop Pod next to a Medusa again!

[BuFFo]

Yay! No more allies! w00t!

Oh, and you guys are being silly about the FOC--- the main rulebook has that stuff. Everything in the Daemonhunters book is labeled which section it comes from.

I can actually Drop Pod next to a Medusa again!

Yeah, and you guys are being silly about the no allies.

See what I did there?

[Old_Paladin]

Oh, and you guys are being silly about the FOC--- the main rulebook has that stuff. Everything in the Daemonhunters book is labeled which section it comes from.

Like I've said before; people should actually look this up in the rulebook.
The FOC given in the rulebook is an example of how they look, and is common;
However, the rulebook states that the actual "minimum and maximum numbers for each of these units is detailed in each army codex book;" as some armies could have different army layouts that best suit their play style (look at High Elves in fantasy; they have a different FOC).

Since the GK are elite army, they must be allowed whatever they feel they need; as there is no stated minimum or maximum for anything.

[BuFFo]

Like I've said before; people should actually look this up in the rulebook.
The FOC given in the rulebook is an example of how they look, and is common;
However, the rulebook states that the actual "minimum and maximum numbers for each of these units is detailed in each army codex book;" as some armies could have different army layouts that best suit their play style (look at High Elves in fantasy; they have a different FOC).

Since the GK are elite army, they must be allowed whatever they feel they need; as there is no stated minimum or maximum for anything.

Toally agreed.

No allies.... Time to get an army of Grand Masters running around....

[gahris]

As much as i don;t agree or disagree that allies are gone or nt (if someone has the WH or DH codex then i'm not gonna rgue with them), but this email isn't really valid proof:

reasons

1 - easy to forge an email, anyone with photoshop could do it
2 - why does the email start talking about tournaments when the question was just about which rules do you use.
3- it's not an official statement jsut a customer services opinion

either way

The Interesting point to note is this.

If you have the codex (full version and paid for) then i say perfectly entitled to use those rules unless GW specifically states the new PDf is an update - which they haven't said.

However what if your a new player to Wh or Dh?

No FOC? an new player could be confused, but most people know how 40k works and every army uses FOC.

as for allies, say i picked up a WH or DH army tomorrow and downloaded the codex, what would i do?

Don't take this the wrong way:

1: Email is real, I can forward you a copy of the email I have if you want. The picture is broken at the top because I wanted to have the screenshot show my question at the same time as the answer, But i don't know how to do that
2: I didn't ask about tournaments. You should read the whole thing.
3: Customer service from GamesWorkshop IS official. DO you need the owner of the company to personally sign it? How about the share holders. Customer Reps are official.

The only important question and answer that is in the email:
Does this PDF override the paper codex I just purchased for 30$?
The new PDF is up for the people who do not have access to buy the codex anymore.
I know that for our tournaments we will be using the Physical codex and NOT the PDF. I hope this helps!

I'm pretty sure that means that If i own the paper codex, I'll be using it in official GW events, which is basically what this whole thing is about.

I don't know how you can get more official then a GW employee, who's job it is to answer this kind of stuff, says so.

[addamsfamily36]

Don't take this the wrong way:

1: Email is real, I can forward you a copy of the email I have if you want. The picture is broken at the top because I wanted to have the screenshot show my question at the same time as the answer, But i don't know how to do that
2: I didn't ask about tournaments. You should read the whole thing.
3: Customer service from GamesWorkshop IS official. DO you need the owner of the company to personally sign it? How about the share holders. Customer Reps are official.

The only important question and answer that is in the email:
Does this PDF override the paper codex I just purchased for 30$?
The new PDF is up for the people who do not have access to buy the codex anymore.
I know that for our tournaments we will be using the Physical codex and NOT the PDF. I hope this helps!

I'm pretty sure that means that If i own the paper codex, I'll be using it in official GW events, which is basically what this whole thing is about.

I don't know how you can get more official then a GW employee, who's job it is to answer this kind of stuff, says so.

Don't worry taken no offense to your comments. hope you didn't take any on my initial post.

1- I'll take your word for it as you seem like an honest guy

2-I read the whole thing, i meant the response given started talking about tournaments, but your question to GW didn't.

3- As much as in the Uk it used to be common ground to give GW a ring on rules, This has not been the case , to my knowledge, for a long time. And as much as an email from a GW employee is nice, i must say that its NOT official in terms of a GW official statement. i see no where saying that employees in customer services are definite rule judges.

As for you using the printed paid copy, i said in the post i agree that anyone with the real codex has every right to use that codex after all this isn't an update.

My question though what if you only have the printed version. A noob to the game or a cheesy *******, might use those codex's without allies but also with no FOC. And as much as i can choose to not play them, they are using a legal codex "of sorts".

There are plenty on here saying NO ALLIES ,and the response they are getting is well if no allies i'll use the NO FOC to create armies of no restriction. But anyone could just take that force anyways and then what are people going to say? you can't do that! which is what the response would be, but they could turn round and say why have you got allies? to which you repy heres my codex, and they go heres mine without its FOC.

i'm just waiting for someone to write that list, when it happens ill die a little inside.

[addamsfamily36]

Also, gahris, a lot of that post was to the thread not at you, just to make that clear lol .

[The Mystic]

Just checked the pdf for WH on the UK site and the section on inducting has been removed. :confused:

[HsojVvad]

Another strength of the Daemonhunters army list is the ease with
which it can be integrated with existing armies. If you already
have an Imperial army such as the Space Marines or Imperial
Guard, it can easily be incorporated into the Daemonhunters list.

Well if allies and induction is gone, why is this still in the codex? It's weird that other people are saying the rules are being removed from other language PDF now. I just find it funny alot of us spend so much time arguing on the forums, but nobody has really called. With over 96 posts in this thread, we could have called GW 96 times and see if we got 96 different answers.

The only perosn who contacted GW is being recycled over and over again and now is being considered fake since it's been used so much by others now.

[Tynskel]

If they didn't remove allies...

then, why did they straight up remove pages. They could have easily just posted the whole thing.

[BlackKnight15624]

I emailed GW customer service too- got the same response as OttawaGamer did. I'll quote the body of what I got:

" The new PDF is NOT officially replacing the paper copy! Also the allies rules missing from the PDF is actually a mistake. They should still be present and hopefully we will have that fixed soon.

Thanks!
John Hollingsworth
Customer Service Specialist"

Good enough for me to keep using it.

[Melissia]

Yes. It's right here in my codex. "By the Authority of the Immortal God-Emperor of Mankind" etc etc etc.

[Paul]

Land Raider Godhammer pattern ARMORED COMPANY FTW.

It's cool, y'know, when there's no FOC.

Reed teh ROOLBUCK, noobz.

[Tynskel]

I don't understand how this was a 'mistake'.

They put a picture in the spot where there was the rules for allies in the Daemonhunter Codex.

[HsojVvad]

Land Raider Godhammer pattern ARMORED COMPANY FTW.

It's cool, y'know, when there's no FOC.

Reed teh ROOLBUCK, noobz.



If I read the rule book, that would mean SW players Can't have 4 HQ choices. Now that there is presidence that the FOC can change, how do I know that the FOC hasn't changed for DH or WH? If allies rules have changed, how do I know the FOC hasn't changed, eh?

[Big mek]

As i see it, its a priority list, going like this:

1) Faq.
2) Puplished codex.
3) Rulebook.
4)everything else, including pdf put out as replacements/adds

So if youre dex tells you that allies are allowed, noone can really argue it!

[Tynskel]

If I read the rule book, that would mean SW players Can't have 4 HQ choices. Now that there is presidence that the FOC can change, how do I know that the FOC hasn't changed for DH or WH? If allies rules have changed, how do I know the FOC hasn't changed, eh?

If it isn't posted in the codex, you fall back upon default Rulebook.

[Paul]

If it isn't posted in the codex, you fall back upon default Rulebook.

There isn't one in the rulebook aside from an "Example" and a statement telling you to refer to your codex.

[Old_Paladin]

There isn't one in the rulebook aside from an "Example" and a statement telling you to refer to your codex.

*Gives Paul a hug*

Thank you Paul, someone else that has bothered to read the rulebook and gets it.
The rulebook tells you to always refer to your actual armybook (and/or any special missions being played).
Nowhere does it ever say "All armies must field 1(one) HQ and 2(two) troops choices." NOWHERE!

[Tynskel]

*Gives Paul a hug*

Thank you Paul, someone else that has bothered to read the rulebook and gets it.
The rulebook tells you to always refer to your actual armybook (and/or any special missions being played).
Nowhere does it ever say "All armies must field 1(one) HQ and 2(two) troops choices." NOWHERE!

Oh, I read that--- and since it is the ONLY thing in the rulebook, that's the one you got---- oh, and would you look at that, it is the same one they have been using for the past 10 years...

[Old_Paladin]

Oh, I read that--- and since it is the ONLY thing in the rulebook, that's the one you got
By that logic, melee combats only count if fought between orks and space marines: as those are the only examples given. You understand what an "example" is, right?


it is the same one they have been using for the past 10 years...
Except for Iron Warriors, and Night Lords, and Assassins (yes,the min-dex allowed an assassins army); and Apoc, and Planetstrike and other special missions.

Just because it is common doesn't make it unique or manditory.

[HsojVvad]

Oh, I read that--- and since it is the ONLY thing in the rulebook, that's the one you got---- oh, and would you look at that, it is the same one they have been using for the past 10 years...

So what other rules are we going to bring up that has been played for the last 10 years?

Oh wait and another thing, I am playing 5th edtion, not something that was made 10 years ago.

Why 10 years? Let us go back a few more years ago where I can use rules that are in my Rouge Trader book then. I can then use Zoats for my Tyrandis. Then I can use other rules as well.

Then again if we are going by your example, DH and WH have been using allies for the past 10 years as well. So what are we debating agian? :rolleyes:

[hisdudeness]

This should answer all the questions I have read in this thread.


http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=11200008a

[Colonel Pryde]

This should answer all the questions I have read in this thread.


http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/content/blogPost.jsp?aId=11200008a

I hate when hazy answers like this come out. It doesn't invalidate the printed one but its up to you. Can't they just decide which one?! Jeeze. Now I have to build 2 army lists before going to an event because I will not know if my opponent will agree to me using the printed one over the pdf. Is it soo hard to choose one or the other? i would rather them validate the pdf because at least I will know what is universal, dominant and legal. But now it's up to YOU and your OPPONENT. First they milk you of your money, then they do something like this...:mad:

Ugh,
a mad Col.Pryde

[rbryce]

^^really? its not that hard to discuss with the opponent beforehand? i do it all the time, about terrain, what units are what etc. it the courtesy that matters. if your opponent has a problem with using your actual dex, and asks you to use the PDF specifically then do you really want to play them? As to events, usually the event organisers put out info packs before the day telling you which dexs are legal, FAQ and all that. and if they dont, is it hard to just have an extra list on you? what, 2-4 pieces of paper? i know i have about 4-5 different lists in my folder at all times, so i can easily get on with playing. im sorry if im coming off as harsh, but this is pre-tea rbryce, and he can be abrupt.

[Colonel Pryde]

My fault, I was probably unclear in my rantish mode. I'm pissed at GW for not being able to settle with a single version. I like to be a prepared gamer, I always start thinking about strategy beforehand. Now with two possible versions to be used, it makes it a bit harder to prepare for a match. It's the difference between taking 2,000pts of daemonhunters or 1750pts of IG and 250pts DH. So it's not just 4 pieces of paper, its a matter of what minis you take. I just think that it was very lackadaisical and irresponsible of GW to post a 1/2 codex and say that it's your choice between 1/2 virtual and the complete hard copy.

Also, I only have 12 GK and 7 GK Termies. I simply can't afford a DH pure force let alone finding where on this planet to buy some if I could (As GW took off GKs from their products). I wish they could settle on one so that I could either leave them home until the new codex or take them with me when I play with IG or SM.

...
Col.Pryde

[Lerra]

My current SM list runs about 750 points of allies. My no-allies SM list isn't fully purchased/assembled at the moment, so I'd rather know one way or the other before I show up to a tournament. I'd rather not get up early and drive to the tournament only to find out that I can't compete.

I've switched to my Kroot Mercs army since this hullabaloo about allies started. It's easier to avoid the problem than to bother arguing about whether or not my SM list is legal.

[Colonel Pryde]

I've switched to my Kroot Mercs army since this hullabaloo about allies started. It's easier to avoid the problem than to bother arguing about whether or not my SM list is legal.

Yeah, this whole thing made DH poison to me. Won't touch em' till the new dex...