Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 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. 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. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Burk, why you gotta be all logical and reasonable? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Burk, why you gotta be all logical and reasonable? Its the republican in me.... insert gay sex joke .<here> 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottshoemaker Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I totally forgot the point of the thread... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 I totally forgot the point of the thread...So did the thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Lord H. is right in all things 40k and pretre is an argumentative jerk. DURR.Truth! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Burk Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 ALL I WANT IS Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Head downtown Portland and you can probably get closure real cheap. ;) 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 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? Could be its own thread at this point or a poll. Since you want closure: 1. To be more exact, I think the identity of the Sisters of Battle should be Witch Hunters, under the Inquisition... as they have been, longer than they haven't been. No one on this forum has the juice to make it happen in either direction. 2. No. SoB were a stand alone codex for one year. Then the codex was invalid. They were just a thing thrown into the 3rd Edition Book, not a stand alone codex. Then nothing until a 2002 non-codex supplement that was just a year before the Witch Hunters version (a preview basically). So no. It was not a stand alone CODEX (1 year +) longer than it was a stand alone Witch Hunters codex in 2003 (8 years). Could you use them in that time with the stats provided? Sure. 3. The necessity of an ally isn't enough in and of itself to say that. Why? The Edition changed. Adepta Sororitas was meant to be stand alone. So were Witch Hunters as Witch Hunters and all that it meant. Nothing in-between the one year codex and its eventual 2002 Chapter Approved supplementary help was. and now... I am talking again about the way in which several codex's are now written that more or less express themselves through multiple detachments much better. So it doesn't have to be an outside ally per se in all cases. For example the Haemonculus coven is played well with either multiple internal formations OR multiple formartions from it and the Dark eldar codex. A lot of Grey Knights players now needed three codex's to reconstruct their lists if they didn't want to totally abandon their lists. Militarum Tempestus most definitely needs multiple Detachments, internal or otherwise, it has to. And so on. Which was what WestRyder wanted to talk about in his thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Actually, I've had quite a few opinions changed by people on the internet. Big things even. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 Bbb, both white dwarf lists (2001 and 2011) and chapter approved 2002) were all stand alone books. More so than c:WH. 2001/2002 actually had more sob units than WH iirc. 2011 definitely did. And all but Bbb had a good amount of fluff. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fluger Posted February 27, 2015 Report Share Posted February 27, 2015 God fluger, can't you just be cool. Like, for once. UGH. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 I'm not really sure why there's confusion. I have seen a similar atatements in threads that stretch vast pages like this from you... I dare say have you gone back and read all the posts since typing them. Both of you are all over the board. And have nearly said opposing things at one time for he intent of being conflicting more than to push one single argument. Wow just wow. Would love to see this go Vbavk on topic with constructive posts. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 What wasn't constructive? Completely serious. And where'd I flip flop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 Oh, probably when I told people they were wrong and should feel bad. To be fair though, Pax was wrong and should feel bad for wanting to eliminate codexes from the game. That was said tongue in cheek, however, which I thought was clear. Now where did I flip flop? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 Wow just wow. Would love to see this go Vbavk on topic with constructive posts. Also, I think we've covered it. People put forward the case for more than 2 sources. The opposite case was presented. I'm not sure that there's much else beyond this. Threads like this go off the rails for several reasons: 1) The topics covered and people start getting into minutae 2) Someone says something outlandish and only tangentially on topic that draws a lot of discussion 3) It's a slow day and people get bored 4) Reasons I think all of these are true in this thread. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Mr. Bigglesworth Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 I love that you went back and read for possible flip flopping. Lol. I really only meant to call one a flip flopped and didn't mean to right in general terms. I agree op was covered quite a bit but was just curious if more could be added. Considering this hit 8 pages I doubt anyone feels inclined to add more Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
winterman Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 Back on topic... I don't think the detachment limit was every meant to combat spam in a meaningful way. At least Reece and others have been pretty vocal about them wanting to limit the kind of stuff that was seen at Adepticon last year. They are also not a fan of the CtA stuff. Allow CtA and open up detachment limits and its only going to escalate what is already perceived by many as a touch too much. Like say take an army like AbusePuppy's Eldar/Tau (not picking on ya AP but its a great example here). Already 2 strong AoC armies, summoning in a third. No detachment limits and its a not much of a stretch to add an inquistor to such an army. Or the spore mine formation from Shield of Baal. etc. Its that sort of cheap and easily added detachments ontop of CTA and similar that makes a case for keeping detachment limits. Also I think one of the original arguments for detachment limits not mentioned is that its mostly Imperial based armies that benefit from removing the 2 detachment limit -- since the have so many battle brothers and detachments to pick and choose from. At this point with every dex getting the 6ed/7ed treatment that argument doesn't hold much water. I think only Tau are the only non-imperial army that doesn't have a ton of BB detachments available. Chaos kinda gets the shaft also but I think that is changing if rumors are to be believed. Anyways, something worth mentioning and discussing I guess. Finally, Adepticon will be a test for the idea of opening up detachment limits, since its unlimited numbers of detachments, just no duplicates (so 8 flyrants is not possible, but 6 or so might be). I suspect based on last year that there will be a lot of Inquisition as predicted here earlier in the thread. Will be interesting to see. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 I love that you went back and read for possible flip flopping. Lol. I really only meant to call one a flip flopped and didn't mean to right in general terms. I agree op was covered quite a bit but was just curious if more could be added. Considering this hit 8 pages I doubt anyone feels inclined to add more Lol I take accusations of flip flopping seriously. I demand satisfaction! ;) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 Good point, Winterman. I can't wait to see what happens at adepticon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VonVilkee Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 (edited) But I want more! Back on topic tho you always have abuse differing force org just shifts the abuse. I'm actually of the opinion with formations and such there is less need for the two detachment rule and something a little more free flowing. I kinda wish more events would allow unbound, cuz the way they are limiting things basically isn't a limit. When you can get 5 flying hive tyrants there isn't really a limit. Also I hate allowing in faction allies now I'd rather they allowed two cads before allowing the extra few slots, at 1850 it would be more painful to require the extra troops offa second CAD. makes it more of a choice to be battle forged which is why I'm also a fan of allowing unbound. Edited February 28, 2015 by VonVilkee 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottshoemaker Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 Is there a Swiss system for 40k? Maybe that's a answer. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chappy Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 I am only adding this comment so we can get closer to 10 pages. Go team Ramrod! 4 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 Amazed this is still going. I had figured it for about 5 pages. Seemed like it was wrapping up around there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pretre Posted February 28, 2015 Report Share Posted February 28, 2015 Amazed this is still going. I had figured it for about 5 pages. Seemed like it was wrapping up around there.where there's a will, there a way. 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.