Burk

I actually think my phantom list gets better with scum in the Meta

Auto thrusters are not auto includes if there is a better modification for the type of ship. Ie I give you named phantoms..... Their auto include is acd

I want to play if spot is available

what a great get Dan! I would be there if it wasn't on the birthday of the greatest country Canada has ever seen.

i believe it is if a mod warns you. However I dont think we have ever used it because we send warnings via PM as it is no one else's business. BTW, all you asshats on this thread should check your PM's.

i bought some...for research purposes.

if you are local, we have Ordo shirts.

i will be there around 5 for 40k game.

ALL I WANT IS

Its the republican in me.... insert gay sex joke .<here>

I think the issue is that you are the only one who is on the same page with what you are typing. Everyone else on this thread is disagreeing with your logic and your premises. This is not an issue when it comes to opinion, but it is if we are talking about hard data. Perhaps that is because you are jumping around. I am okay with that as long as we can have an agreement or closure on open issues. Until they are agreed upon, I can only assume they are still being discussed, but you are saying you moved on....so I am really really confused.

Ok, so then please answer these questions....so i have.....closer (yeah thats it) 1. Do you agree or disagree that SOB and WH should be part of the same faction? 2. Do you agree or disagree that SOB have been a stand alone codex more (time wise) then they were a part of WH? 3. Do you believe that a necessity of an ally to plug holes is an indicator of if an army (SOB in this case) was meant to be stand alone?

I only wish there was font bigger then 24 point......

OK, so the issue that most of us have been debating the last ohh, 3 pages is not what you are talking about.....got it...i think then. WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT???????

that then evolved into a discussion about how having an ally makes them better. Ergo (at least in my mind) you are arguing that the presence of an ally improving them implies they are not meant to be a stand alone codex...... Please tell me where that logic is not the logical progression from your argument.

Like, this is what you said:

ok, so I am really confused. wasn't your initial premise that SOB should be considered part of WH, or the inquisition? I mean that is what the what I remember on pages 4-6. and if that is not what you are arguing (or were), then WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT???????

Sooo, then what makes it wrong? if there are several, what is wrong or changes or makes SOB different then the rest? if That was one of your reasonings for why SOB should be considered part of WH (again), then why is this logic even used if demonstrably not unique?

You said, . I would argue that every single codes gets better by using an ally to fill holes in the codex....are you trying say that SOB are the one that benefits from this more than others?

You just described every codex in the game?

I honestly dont understand the issue here. Why is arguing even occuring?

Use the video game to understand how to block, how you get assist, etc. you wont see tactics on there from the AI, but it gives you the basics.

Yes the video game plays like the boardgame, but a caution, the level of play vastly differs. those of us that have been playing the board game along time...and I mean a long time, 20+ years for me now, see the videogame as not even a little bit competitive (vs computer). the AI does not understand how to the play the game competitively. This is going to sound like a brag, but take it as a critique of the AI, but on the hardest level of difficulty I can count the number of games lost on one hand (of probably 500+), and usually to wood elfs. the computer does things in the wrong order or wrong priority compared to someone who would play competitvely. so please be aware of that. order of operations is what BB is about. when to move what and at what level of failure. the computer game does not get that.

Seth, that is a wording error, it is a singles event.