RE: [BTSS] SOB attention by GW

Shh! Quiet. Stop injecting logic into this conversation. :)

Andrew

---- Craig X <denimvst@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> But the Necrons still got more pages in a single issue than we have over four.... <sigh>
>
> But I'm not trying to sell more Necron models :-)
>
>
>
>
> To: battle-sisters@yahoogroups.com
> From: andrewm9@tampabay.rr.com
> Date: Thu, 1 Dec 2011 10:57:20 -0500
> Subject: Re: [BTSS] SOB attention by GW
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yes I believe we have gotten more WD articles in the last few months since the codex came out than we have in the last 5 years perhaps even since the last codex came out.
>
> ---- Tom Lynch <rowport@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Hmm-- interesting. OK, I will take another look. Thanks for the tip!
> >
> > Also, in case anybody missed it, I quite enjoyed the Sisters article in the November WD about Duncan Rhodes' army. Whether or not it is just to sell Sisters backstock or not, I liked seeing a hobby article about my favorite army. :)
> >
> > --- On Wed, 11/30/11, pzbw7z <dgibson8@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> >
> > > From: pzbw7z <dgibson8@sbcglobal.net>
> > > Subject: Re: [BTSS] SOB attention by GW
> > > To: battle-sisters@yahoogroups.com
> > > Date: Wednesday, November 30, 2011, 7:03 PM
> > > Actually the first data sheet is a
> > > huge buff to some fairly sucky units. It might even work in
> > > Apocalypse since one isn't limited by the SoB crap-dex.
> > >
> > > That isn't to say that the formation is killer, just that
> > > the datasheet is a big boost for 50 points. Removing Rage,
> > > boosting FnP and Shield of Faith? It's pretty good.
> > >
> > > The second one just strikes me as silly.
> > >
> > > --- In battle-sisters@yahoogroups.com,
> > > Tom Lynch <rowport@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Once GW committed to having rules in White Dwarf again
> > > (not just Sisters codex but also WHFB monster stats) it only
> > > makes sense to keep it up. That way anybody who came back to
> > > the mag for the new stuff keeps getting it even if only
> > > little bits like apoc datasheets.
> > > >
> > > > FWIW I think the first Sisters one sucked but the
> > > second with fleets of meltas or flamers is pretty good.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > On Nov 30, 2011, at 10:20 AM, "johnlay95"
> > > <john_lay@...> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > I would not call it love because it has been so
> > > poor. The SOB have been getting some attention as of
> > > late though. Since Aug. WD update there has been some
> > > small SOB thing in every WD Aug. Sept. Oct. Nov. and
> > > Dec. In the Dec. WD we get 2 new AP data sheets I can
> > > not say either is very good but they are there. Why
> > > after so many years of nothing is there so much all of the
> > > sudden?
> > > > >
> > > > > Some some things to think about.
> > > > >
> > > > > John
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > ------------------------------------
> > > > >
> > > > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > ------------------------------------
> > >
> > > Yahoo! Groups Links
> > >
> > >
> > > battle-sisters-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>