Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 kronk wrote:
BoW are not Beasts of War; rather, they're Brits Often Wrong.

These guys are wrong more often than I am, and that's saying something! I quit watching their videos a long time ago, except for their What's in the Box segments. I like their actual miniature hobby coverage.

They aren't British, UK =/= Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom

 Idolator wrote:
If anyone tried to pull that crap on me, I would have them read the rules out loud to me. Since the exact wording is "Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units that cannot be charged, shot, targeted, with psychic powers or have templates or blast markers placed over them."

After they read that aloud, I would point out that the rules state that he cannot target the unit.

It doesn't say "Units in the controlling players army"

That should shut them down pretty quick.

Nice!..ill remember that if it comes up at my game shop

Anyhow,yeah these guys need to lay off the bong hits.Sheese im pretty new to playing the game and do alot of searching on the web when I see holes in the rules but even I didnt think that was a disputable rule,lol.

First off We are the Commanders of our armys,we dont have a "unit" on the board that represents us directly. Therefore we control our army from an "eye in the sky" perspective and the models we place do as we command.How these units get along is dictated by the rules and the allies of convenience rules are pretty clear on which level of alliance units can score and what not.You armies are fighing for you and will collect up how ever many VP`s they can, to be totalled up at game end.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 kronk wrote:
BoW are not Beasts of War; rather, they're Brits Often Wrong.

These guys are wrong more often than I am, and that's saying something! I quit watching their videos a long time ago, except for their What's in the Box segments. I like their actual miniature hobby coverage.

They aren't British, UK =/= Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom

"Britain may refer to: The United Kingdom, a sovereign state in western Europe"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Britain

Britan has a few definitions, as narrow as 'Great Britain, the largest island in the British Isles and the largest island in Europe'

or as broad as "The United Kingdom, a sovereign state in western Europe"

I'd be very careful calling people in Northern Ireland British, there is a bit of a history.
Britain has never included any definition that contains any of Ireland. The united kingdom of great Britain and northern Ireland (previously the united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland), the UK, also makes the distinction clear. It's kinda in the name.

So the only thing BoW got right is the assault thing? Good to know.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 kronk wrote:
BoW are not Beasts of War; rather, they're Brits Often Wrong.

These guys are wrong more often than I am, and that's saying something! I quit watching their videos a long time ago, except for their What's in the Box segments. I like their actual miniature hobby coverage.

They aren't British, UK =/= Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom

These guys are located in Northern Ireland? Wouldn't have guessed it. Couldn't find their location on their website.
good to know.

They sounded Scottish to me, and that's been part of Britain since 1603.

if someone tried to bring this argument to a game i would just pick up my models and leave.
That is some INSANE pickyness on the rules. Why would they put a rule in there designed to screw yourself over for taking it? If this was true, you wouldnt benefit one bit from allies except as throw-away units.

 Happygrunt wrote:
I had a guy tell me this at the local shop tell me about how allies of convenience work based on this video and that anything below battle brothers was worthless.
Could anyone explain to me how to counter said argument?

I quote from the BRB...

"Units in your army treat Allies of Convenience as enemy units..."

for once this confusion wasn't GW's fault

Going back over the various rules, I believe I was mistaken when it comes to allies of convenience denying you objectives. The rules don't actually reference them as denying the objectives to your opponent. However, I still believe that your models make no distinction between allies of convenience/desperation models and your opponent's models in the fight subphase, and must pile into and attack them if they are able and have no alternative. I have yet to find any rules that allow you to ignore them or treat them as friendly models. The only way I can see that you can escape from the combat (short of special rules like hit and run) is to have one of your units fall back from the combat, though depending on the circumstances you may have to risk a sweeping advance.

The problem is it says "that cant be assaulted" . GW must assume that becasue you cant assault them, then they cant be attacked either, its common sense, obviously something missing by these BOW people. GW must really think we are a bunch of idiots sometimes from things like this. Its just a case of reading way way way to much into the rules, and not using understanding to put 2+2 together.

Or maybe they didn't put in rules that make them treat allies as friendly units in multiple combat to allow them to attack each other for cinematic and storytelling purposes. The fact is no one knows if it was intended or not except the people who wrote the rules, so you can't just say "it's obvious they meant this" because it really isn't. The fact of the matter is that the rules don't allow you to simply not attack enemy units, regardless of whether they're your opponent's or allies. Now you can play it how you wish, but don't go onto a forum and tell people your house ruling is clearly the way it's meant to be played.

 PrinceRaven wrote:
Or maybe they didn't put in rules that make them treat allies as friendly units in multiple combat to allow them to attack each other for cinematic and storytelling purposes. The fact is no one knows if it was intended or not except the people who wrote the rules, so you can't just say "it's obvious they meant this" because it really isn't. The fact of the matter is that the rules don't allow you to simply not attack enemy units, regardless of whether they're your opponent's or allies. Now you can play it how you wish, but don't go onto a forum and tell people your house ruling is clearly the way it's meant to be played.

Simple way is to avoid taking allies until an faq is put out. However if a you come to a game where this comes up, you will need to house rule. Now you can either, 1) let allies of convenience score and not attack each other and play like normal or 2) rules lawyer this out and say they cant score becasue they are enemy units, and that they will fight each other if locked in combat.

Now Im not saying my idea is the way it should be played, its up to whoever is playing to make a decision with their opponent. However, option 2 will not make you many friends, looking through this thread, most people will play it as they can score and wont fight. Im not a minority, and the whole point of being on a forum is to share ideas. Welcome to the internet

 liturgies of blood wrote:
I'd be very careful calling people in Northern Ireland British, there is a bit of a history.
Britain has never included any definition that contains any of Ireland. The united kingdom of great Britain and northern Ireland (previously the united kingdom of great Britain and Ireland), the UK, also makes the distinction clear. It's kinda in the name.

Just to point out the Demonym for someone from the UK is British or Briton.

Now back on topic,

So to clarify, you must pile in to Allies of Convenience?

Lol, maybe I should go read up on Anglo-Irish History again.
BTW the guys are Northern Irish, I know this cos I met them in Northern Ireland.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

 kronk wrote:
BoW are not Beasts of War; rather, they're Brits Often Wrong.

These guys are wrong more often than I am, and that's saying something! I quit watching their videos a long time ago, except for their What's in the Box segments. I like their actual miniature hobby coverage.

They aren't British, UK =/= Britain.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_kingdom

Damn. Now I need another acronym for them. Thanks for the correction.

 liturgies of blood wrote:

BTW the guys are Northern Irish, I know this cos I met them in Northern Ireland.

Don't say cos. You're aren't a 13 year old girl. Say because.

I believe "cos" is a perfectly cromulant word. :p