I misremembered about Maxson, but your wrong about not making sense on a retreat. You would do precisely that if you were trying to withdraw essential personnel before being completely crushed by a force with superior numbers. We aren't talking about a retreat designed to regroup into a more favourable position, as you are, we are talking about a retreat designed solely to preserve the existence of your "race". The last desperate stand to allow "civilians" to escape is actually pretty common in media (there are some examples, nothing too recent but that has more to do with advanced weapons tech killing you no matter where you go). Regardless the point is moot, as you said he was sent after the expedition East.

Though I have still yet to see any evidence from you about why it doesn't make sense that holds water. A lot of your complaint that it doesn't make sense seems to stem solely from your belief that the BoS does not need to be in every Fallout. Oddly enough though, despite your assertion that the NCR is more important to Fallout, only a single faction has actually been present in every fallout game ever made, and as far as I'm aware in all of the cancelled FO games (Van Buren, Tactics 2, Extreme, BoS 2).

I guess that does put it in perspective, I didn't realize just how recently Lyons was cut off. It also makes the actual time-line of the NCR v WCBoS war a little more interesting to me.


Anyway, back on to topic:

I honestly would prefer it to be the members of the BoS from tactics that didn't crash with the MWBoS near Chicago. Actually I kind of wish they had gone with that explanation for the CWBoS.

If you're withdrawing essential personnel, then the Elders of the WCBoS would fall under essential personnel, not someone as low down as Lyon's was when he first left California. He was only a Paladin, someone who would be on the frontline of battle, not an Elder. As someone with actual military experience, and I having learned these things in real life, essential personnel are moved out of harm's way first, and those least essential, hold the line and act as a screen/decoy to the enemy force before them. Whether it's a retreat to regroup or preserve the existence of your forces, it doesn't matter, essential personnel like the Elders are, would still be moved, as they are the ones who are in the best position to maintain and preserve stability. Not a lowly soldier.

So your theory that Lyon's expedition wasn't an expedition, doesn't make any sort of tactical sense from a military point of view.

And the BoS being in every game goes to show Beth's feeling, as I stated to begin with, that Fallout isn't Fallout without the BoS. Which is completely ridiculous. I've already explained, and it's been explained on these forums over the years enough times to realize, that the BoS was shoehorned into Fallout 3, because of Beth's feeling they need to be everywhere, or it doesn't connect with past Fallout titles. Which again, is ridiculous.

1) I concede that it wasn't a retreat, but I disagree that the elders would be considered essential by the rank and file. The elders solution to dissent of their isolationist views seems to be a benevolent form of exile, probably because they would be overthrown if they didn't. Considering that the BoS seem to be heavily mirror that of Sparta (council of elders (Gerousia) and a hereditary leader descended from a great leader/warrior (Maxson v Heracles)) I would tend to believe that the elders are ignorant enough to consider themselves essential as opposed to the problem. So your right, but only because the BoS suffers from piss poor leadership promoting isolationist and elitist ways (much the same way the Gerousia doomed the Spartans with their pride).

2) The BoS in every game goes to the feelings of: Black Isle, Obsidian, Interplay, and Bethesda. All developers or publishers who have created, proposed or put out Fallout games. The opinions of the creators matter a lot more than the opinions of less than 1% of total fans who actually frequent message boards, and even then the opinion isn't universal.

You feel it's shoe horned, that's your opinion. It could have been done better, but it isn't any more ridiculous than your assumption the BoS isn't an essential part of the franchise when literally every developer who has touched the game has clearly disagreed.

You're trying to convince someone who felt that the BoS was put into Fo3 to convince veterans of the series to buy the game. That belief alone should tell you how pointless the discussion is with said individual.

See, the scenerio I'm looking at though, is that Owyn Lyons passed away. As I've stated, a big reason I already felt that the majority of BOS members who are apart of the original expedition didn't turn on him was because he was an elder and he was still recognized by the West Coast Council.

Also, I wouldn't call what Casdin did a "rebellion", he simply left to carry out the original mission that was assigned by the West Coast Council, gather tech. How many members of the original BOS expedition, or children who grew up during the expedition under Head Paladin Casdin, would begrudge him for doing what he did?

And we don't really know how many of the current knights are BOS members/children of BOS members, and how many initiates are locals rather than children of BOS members. After all, they said that locals are "overeager" and end up making a mistake/doing something stupid and dying.

From my point of view, if the West Coast Council decides to recognize Casdin as the new elder after Owyn Lyons passed away from old age or whatever other problems he has, how many of the original expedition members/children of said members, argue against it?

1. Which is exactly why, the WCBoS, who is so isolationist and elitist, was a bad choice for Beth to use as Lyon's starting point, before going to the Capital Wasteland. Now had it been the MWBoS, things would be different, although Lyon's would likely be different, the whole game that Fallout 3 is, would likely not exist. But because Beth was either thoughtless or ignorant about how the WCBoS is, we got what we got with Lyon's and their origin.

2. So if the BoS wasn't in a Fallout titled game, would people complain and say it wasn't a Fallout game, just because the BoS, who until Fallout 3 wasn't a faction who really presented itself a lot to the wasteland, wasn't in it? I think some would, but not having the BoS in a Fallout game, just like not having the NCR, which played a much bigger role in Fallout 1 and 2, and was likely to do the same in Van Buren, would still be a Fallout game. Beth just used the BoS, without considering their lore and ideology, because of their big armor and "cool" factor.

So of course I feel they were shoehorned in, I can't see how they, like the Enclave, Super Mutants (and even Deathclaws to some degree,) weren't.

Did you play FO3? The BoS are mentioned many times as being divergent from the original BoS in an ideological sense. Why is it so hard for people to grasp that Lyon's Brotherhood is no longer like the originals? Lyons changed his chapter to focus on helping people, this is the opposite of "not considering their lore". Absolutely nothing in FO3 ever contradicts the Brotherhood of Steel's established lore in any way. The BoS seeks technology and it's preservation, after heading across the country Lyons had a change of heart but Casdin and his group still hold true to their order's mission and represent the mindset of the original BoS.

Fallout without the BoS would be absolutely boring, they are a staple of the franchise and nothing prevents them from sending a chapter to anywhere that technology may be present as is their modus operandi. I mean next you people are going to demand that the Vaults stop appearing in Fallout, as well as Ghouls, oh and definitely Raiders...i mean why do you play Fallout again? It seems you dislike all the things that make Fallout unique so i have to assume you just complain for the sake of it

Have you not read anything I said? A poorly written and reasoned story, stemming from a faction who's situation and status was ignored by Beth, does not make for a good reason why the BoS was in Fallout 3. It does exactly the complete opposite. And I've explained to others in those posts, exactly why the WCBoS was a mistake for Beth to use. You just going on about a poorly written story, for the basis of your argument, doesn't help as I and plenty of others on here before, have already shown the giant holes in the story and logic that Beth put forward.

And please, actually explain exactly why Fallout would be boring without the BoS in a game? Obviously your introduction to Fallout, and the BoS was Fallout 3, so you think they have to be in a Fallout title, to be a Fallout game, otherwise it's "boring". But that just isn't true. As I said before, the NCR has played a much larger part in forming how the wasteland is, not the BoS, yet Fallout 3 didn't have the NCR, and that was fine. Would still be considered a Fallout title, and not be boring. Having the BoS not in a Fallout title would be fine too, and they should have been considering what I've put forward, or Beth should have used the MWBoS, but as I've said, that would have made Fallout 3 a totally different game.

You make a baseless assumption about me as if you know me but you know nothing. The NCR is restricted by their very name to be on a single coast, not only that but they werent even thematically relevant or special until NV, the BoS on the other hand are iconic and represent a central theme of the Fallout IP.

There is no huge plothole for FO3's story, they give explanation for the plot which therefore makes it acceptable. Lyons is sent away from the original BoS, has a change of heart upon discovering a separate strain of Super Mutants, and diverts from his mission. The Enclave shows up when they see an opportunity to take control (and kill everyone in JHE's case) of the wasteland, the savior-outlook of Lyons causes him to wage war against the Enclave...now tell me where the plothole is?

The NCR is not restricted at all, are you joking? Just because their name has California in it, doesn't mean they have to sit in California, it shows where they originated, but the NCR has obviously expanded. They control parts of Oregon, Nevada and the Baja peninsula in Mexico. Them expanding Eastwards has always been apart of where they were meant to go, before Beth even owned the Fallout rights. In Van Buren, that was what they were doing, and we saw that in NV. The NCR has formed and founded a lot more in the wasteland, than the isolationist and xenophobic WCBoS, who's only ever fought the Master's Army and told all other wasteland inhabitants, to get lost while they sit in their bunkers, hoarding technologies.

Do you really not realize the explanation given by Beth is poor? If you can't see that, fine, but you're blinding yourself to it, by just repeating their same line of poor reasoning. It's been explained why Beth's story is weak and poorly written. You continuing to just repeat Beth's same poorly written and reasoned story, without actually saying how it doesn't have plot holes, doesn't change the fact that it does. I have explained through understanding the WCBoS actual situation given, in-game and lore, to why the WCBoS could not do what Beth made them do. It went completely against it, and yet Beth threw a poorly given story out, that shoehorned them in.

I didnt see an explanation in that gargled rant, just the illusion of one

That's because I already told you to read my previous posts, which you obviously didn't pay any attention to, before actually responding to me. I've already explained it enough times to others, I don't need to explain it again to you, because you can't go back and read something.

And it's not me who needs to give the explanation, I've already explained the plot holes, it's you who didn't give an explanation at all to why the plot was sound in Fallout 3. You just mimicked Beth's poorly written and reasoned story.

So everything is wrong until proven right? Sounds like a cop-out to me

Honestly, are you not going to read anything I said before, and just pretend that you're right? Because you're not putting anything up against what I've said, other than deflective comments like this, that say nothing because you can't say anything, and mimicking Beth's poorly written story. Maybe actually say something, after reading what I have already said to others.

I didnt mimic anything, i layed-out the plot. The plot of which there are no objective plotholes in, at least not any moreso than those in any of the other Fallouts. You just have some malicious disgruntlment (i made up that word) towards FO3 even though you dont provide any objective reasons to it

By you laying out the plot that Beth wrote up, you're mimicking them. That's exactly what you did, and you're still saying nothing at all to how it doesn't have plot holes. Mimicking what Beth said, is not showing proof of evidence, how it's got nothing wrong with it. Clearly it does, on many levels, not just with the BoS, but you really cannot put anything forward that says otherwise to what I've said.

You're not even bothering to read what I said, you're just posting more and more blatant deflection posts, to try and put the burden of proof on me, when it's on you after I already put forth what I did. You just, for whatever reason, don't want to look at it, so ignore it by deflection. Keep going if you want, but at least others who replied to me, put up arguments. You're not doing anything.

there ARE no plot holes really, none at all. just because YOU do not like the reasoning, does not make it a plothole.

If i dont think there are plotholes then how am i supposed to...prove there arent plotholes? That makes no sense. It is like asking me to explain what oxygen looks like...i cant see but i since i can breathe im sure that it is here

Again, a post that brings nothing to the conversation. I've said again and again in previous posts, where the plot holes are, and explained it more times than I care to. I won't do it again, because it's there for all to see. But it seems you and Warpsmith don't fancy reading a contradictory position from your own, and bother to actually try to show how I'm wrong. Read, like I've said to him, what I've said, and try to actually bring something to this. Others have, and I've explained to them where they've tried to say I was wrong.

Do you understand what burden of proof means? When you state something, and someone brings up a counter point to what you said, it falls on you to explain how their position is wrong, and yours is the correct one. Mimicking what Beth said the story was, does not do that. However, as I've stated plenty of ways there are plot holes, your job is to read what I said, and actually bring something to this discussion that shows how what I said, was wrong, using clear evidence.

Otherwise, you're continued deflection is just wasting time.

Given how easily airships build up static electric charges I was wondering if it was some kind of Airship mounted semi spinal Tesla gun.

@Warpsmith Plot-holes are fun educational and highly Nutritious and part of a well balanced Breakfast....especially when compared to Sugarbombs!,

I wouldn't be surprised if it had some kind of cannon of that sort.

Burden of proof is on the person trying to prove the existence of something, otherwise i can claim that ghosts live in your pockets and you can do nothing but accept it as fact

Just dropping by to say that just because something has an explanation, doesn't necessarily give it a free pass.

Bethesda may have written up how there was a Brotherhood revolt thus causing a split between "Happy fun times good guys" BoS and The Outcasts, and Tiber Septim may have used Chim to transform the entire landscape of Cyrodiil, but both of these things are still pretty stupid.

Fallout 2 is, to the largest extent, what Fallout without the BOS looks like. There is a single NPC in the entire game that references them.

So you still deflecting I see, because you can't come up with anything to counter my point. You, Warpsmith, are a very bad debater, and I'm really starting to think I wasn't wrong in saying your first experience in Fallout, was Fallout 3.

And FYI, burden of proof is having to prove something in general, not that something exists. Might want to look up the definition next time.