Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Sorry for seeing a post less then 24 hours old, having a related question on the topic and then daring to have the gall to post it on a thread you personally deemed to be 'done.'

Doesn't stop me being curious still:
Why would being a 'purchasable Fortification' be enough to fill a Slot while other things need to be part of a Datasheet by default?

JinxDragon wrote:
Sorry for seeing a post less then 24 hours old, having a related question on the topic and then daring to have the gall to post it on a thread you personally deemed to be 'done.'

Doesn't stop me being curious still:
Why would being a 'purchasable Fortification' be enough to fill a Slot while other things need to be part of a Datasheet by default?

It was already addressed. Unholyllama provided an explanation of the sentence in question that better fit the context than the one I proposed. Your arrival is like if I went to Berlin an was like, "What now Nazis! I'm here to fight you!" The debate was already won by someone defending the position you claim to hold. I conceded, meaning I'm no longer defending the position I initially was. The other person who initially agreed with me also acknowledged that Unholyllama won the debate. So you have no opposition, no one to convince.

If you are actually curious as to why people think you can take a Fortification without its own separate Datasheet, it is because of that first sentence on page 19 of Stronghold Assault. Some people take that bolded sentence as a rule, allowing the rest of the page to be taken as Fortification. No where in the rules have I seen anything needs to be in the Datasheet format. So that being the standard could concievably mean that older books simply haven't been updated to the new standard yet.

But the point is null, because as you're arguing against a Straw-man where I used to be standing, but am no longer. Declaring the debate over wasn't claiming victory (which would be faulty), it was admitting defeat. So you coming here to challenge a position we've already cast aside, is no different than me going to Germany to challenge Nazis. Even without the declaration, the conflict is over.

Also, if you're going to argue that something isn't allowed because the thing that is allowed has a specific rule allowing it, present the rule, or at least a summary with the page reference. Otherwise you've provided no evidence for your position.

*Snip*

Edit:Useless comment by me. Forum buttons more useful...

Given the insulting nature of your post, I think I will just use the little triangle button instead of even trying to fill the one reasonable request that was within.
You can read the sections relating to Force Organization Charts and Slot, Battlefield Roles and Army List Entries for yourself to see why these things are important to answering the question of 'how do I go about purchasing this to fill a Role in this Detachment...?'

A little reminder on how a forum works: a forum is a place where you can come to create or participate in a conversation. It is not a place where any single (non-moderator) user gets to declare a conversation over. If you no longer wish to participate in a conversation, you can simply stop posting there.

Dakka adds to those basics of forum use with the requirement that you, first and foremost, be polite when engaging with other users.