--- In netepic_at_yahoogroups.com, Peter Ramos <primarch_at_c...> wrote:
>. So yes, anything thats on the card and not in the rules
> gets "left out".
>
> It seems eliminating the restriction is favored (and frankly I've NEVER
> used it), so I'd say forget it.
I've always kind of liked it: Exarchs are awfully Butch...
....Well: how about putting a notation about it in "optional Rules"?
ReB T'oma
Lyrics are Here:
http://sheridan.gothcentric.com/lyrics/sinisterducks.php
Animated Video is Here:
http://pip.rubberfeet.org/stuff/ducks.html
>
> Jarreas Underwood wrote:
>
> >>...Thus endeth the Reading...
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Wow. You're right, it's on the card in black and white. Cleverly
hidden in the flavor text and nowhere in the rulebook, where folks
might think to look for it.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>...you're saying the requirement doesn't exist anymore...?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Not that I know of. It's like the "a broken unit must make a morale
test at the start of every Close Combat Segment if they are in Close
Combat, or go on Fall Back Orders" rule. Fallen through the cracks
sorta thing.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >>Surely: aspect warriors must be on the table to field in order to
> >>field Exarchs...?
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Nope. They're a Special Card and that's the only limitation. I
figure whoever typed up the origional NetEpic rules was reading the
rulebook and not the cards themselves. *Thanks* GW for putting
everything in one place for easy reference!
> >-Yar
> >
> >
> >
> >
Received on Mon Apr 11 2005 - 20:21:47 UTC