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.

If I was at home I would be bringing everyone's attention to a specific paragraph within the allied section, page 111ish. This single paragraph goes on to detail that army means both detachments, which would be very useful if it wasn't for the fact they then go on to state that certain army and allied combinations work better. After giving us a description of the terminology 'army' they then throw it out the window by using a derived word in a way that directly conflicts what they had just stated.

If they can not keep the terminology straight for a single paragraph then what hopes do we have?

Some clarifications now I reviewed it:

The page is 109 and the section is known as allied detachments. Understandably, it goes on to do what you would expect and outline what allies mean in your army and use nice terminology that would answer once and for all. I particularly are fond of the line pointing out that your army can include allied detachments up to the number of primary detachments already in your army. It shows that the two detachments, primary and allied, are separate entities in a larger organization known as the army.

I did make a fair mistake: It is the last paragraph in this three paragraph section and not in the same paragraph.