Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 No, I think you misunderstand you entirely. CAD says that all units have to be from the same faction; just like Allied Detachment says that you can't have any units that are the same faction as your primary detachment. By your post that I just quoted, All Imperial Armies are one faction. That means, by the same logic, that if you can't include other imperial armies in your allied detachment because they are the same faction, you can include any units from any Imperial Army in the same CA because they are the same faction. Again, keep track of your extreme positions. :) What i think i will do is ask you to exercize discernment when reading instead of trying to root around in the dirt for some very bizarre interpretation of my meaning. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 What i think i will do is ask you to exercize discernment when reading instead of trying to root around in the dirt for some very bizarre interpretation of my meaning. Your reading about Allied Detachments was wrong. Because it was wrong, it allowed other flawed, wrong interpretations. I was simply pointing that out. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Because you are reading it on its own out of context like usual, looking for something to be mad about. I'm not mad, bro. This may come as an ego blow, but you don't make me mad. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Your reading about Allied Detachments was wrong. Because it was wrong, it allowed other flawed, wrong interpretations. I was simply pointing that out. Sure, man. I hope you now understand how silly your interpretation of what I said was. Because I clearly would love for you to show up and tell someone that "Lord Hanaur told you to do it". That'd be hilarious. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 It was meant to be silly to point out how wrong your interpretation of the ally rules are. I have no intention of driving three hours for a tournament right now. ;) or of using your interpretation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I didn't. what i described is that the Codex's are forcing the issue of Detachments and i am saying that 1+1 may be too strict, given how they are written and i used SEVERAL codexes as examples. It sounds like we agree. You said, And because it is an option doesn't change the basic truth which is that the Codex really really is helped more than should be necessary against certain lists. . 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 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? No. it is one of them that benefits more than it should have to from them. I said earlier in the thread that there were several. in fact i said it twice! Necrons, Militarum Tempestus, Grey Knights, haemonculus Covens and obviously Sisters of Battle as well all are wrriten in one way or another that really makes the 1+1 Restriction harder and harder to justify. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 No. it is one of them. I said earlier in the thread that there were several. in fact i said it twice! Necrons, Militarum Tempestus, Grey Knights, haemonculus Covens and obviously Sisters of Battle as well all are wrriten in one way or another that really makes the 1+1 Restriction harder and harder to justify. 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? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 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? I think you're still on a part of the discussion this wasn't written to address. The purpose of the thread and what i was addressing here... with this... had nothing to do with Witch Hunters... See page 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Remember, when you're on the ropes.. Yell "off topic!" 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 That's a joke, btw. Don't want anyone to think I'm mad. ;) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 As to the threads purported reason for existing (which has now become a codex history lesson) The Sisters of Battle currently have large holes to fill in their codex. Not game losing holes, just holes. Anti-air is non existent and Psykers are too (as they should be). That's germane because it means that it essentially joins the Militarum Tempestus, the Haemonculus Coven, the Inquisition, the Grey Knights, and the Necrons as Codex's that are written with multiple detachments as a given in the way they are written. And at some point, we are going to have to decide if 1+1 is really going to allow for those codex's to be expressed in their full glory. My own Haemonculus Coven list could not exist at LVO, interestingly. Neither could the Necron Warrior based list I made (though its easily converted to a 1+1) and certainly not the Canoptek Harvest list would not work at LVO. Militarum Tempestus is hard pressed when forced into a 1+1 and pretty much may as well not come if they go built with just their base Command Groups and an ally unless its just for the funsies (and that's totally valid). So I think that in the case of Sisters of Battle, 1+1 doesn't hurt them terribly but you need two CADS to fill the holes and LVO isn't down with that either. It's an interesting problem. I was quite content with normal force Orgs until I had to fight Chaos FMC spam. A single CAD no longer looked as appealing for Sisters of Battle against some very specific 1+1 lists... I'm allowing up to three Detachments as long as one is a Combined Arms Detachment in the last tournament and the upcoming one. We will see how it goes. The first one troubled me a little because of the Adamantine Lance, which was SUCH a mismatch for some players. We shall see how that plays out again in this next one. The question is: allow three Detachments and just limit the "Campaign Supplement" stuff (but then Blood angels and necron players are going to be up in arms) or just shrink it back to 1+1. Unenviable choices to make. This. page 4. Im on topic. Are you? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I think you're still on a part of the discussion this wasn't written to address. The purpose of the thread and what i was addressing here... with this... had nothing to do with Witch Hunters... See page 4 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??????? 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Like, this is what you said: What I don't really see, at all, is how putting the Inquisition with the Sisters of Battle doesn't make sense to you. Taste is one thing. But it's not disputable that it was done. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 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. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 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??????? you kinda have to float along the thread to follow it. Westryder is asking about 2 detachment limits. We got off track and got started in on the Sisters of Battle and their detachment from the Inquisition and after a bit of trolling and back and forth about the history and nerdrage over the rightness of separating the SoB from the Inquisition, on page 4 i ended that and came back to the issue at hand. Which is what we're talking about now. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
intrizic Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 It's only better now that Burk is here :D 5 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Oh, now because we disagree with you, we are trolling and need raging... Keep it classy. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 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??????? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 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. As for being a stand alone codex, i explained (earlier) that i thought they were fine on their own until Chaos Daemon FMC sorted me out on the subject and I have since decided that the SoB codex, while awesome and one of my favorites, definitely requires some help, more than it should need it, and that put it in the category of OTHER codex's who are now written in one way or another that makes a 2 detachment limitation increasingly unrealistic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I only wish there was font bigger then 24 point...... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 WHAT THE HELL IS THIS ABOUT??????? You must be new here... ;) 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lord Hanaur Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I only wish there was font bigger then 24 point...... I'm not really sure why there's confusion. I know of no forum that doesnt meander from topic to topic. We did. Now as you can read, i am addressing NOT the Witch Hunter codex in any way but instead the number of Detachments. Pretre is spending his time trying to find some insane way in which what i wrote allows him to bring a Space Wolf into a Sister of Battle army (I think that was another tangent and I think its sorted and pretty much done). So bigger fonts probably wont help untangle it. Neither will meme's. but then... I mean... how has that ever stopped us. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 As for being a stand alone codex, i explained (earlier) that i thought they were fine on their own until Chaos Daemon FMC sorted me out on the subject and I have since decided that the SoB codex, while awesome and one of my favorites, definitely requires some help, more than it should need it, and that put it in the category of OTHER codex's who are now written in one way or another that makes a 2 detachment limitation increasingly unrealistic. 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? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.