JNAProductions wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Regardless, I want them buffed, per the topic.

That's fine. Do understand, most people disagree with you.

That's OK. I'd trade Eldar being nerfed for Necrons being Squatted.

Someone is bitter about 'crons. I'd rather take on crons any day of the week over frickin Eldar.

You'll never squat us, there are dozens of us, dozens!

Can we nerf both Eldar and Necrons? They both could use a heavy dose

8th ed is coming, and if you are not one of the five flavors of power armor balance will be a crap shoot, so who knows you might get your wish. I hope it's like 3rd all over again, they reset the rules, release army lists for each faction (ala sigmar war scrolls), have a few force org charts that all factions can use to mix up list building and go from there.

Martel732 wrote:
Someone is bitter about 'crons. I'd rather take on crons any day of the week over frickin Eldar.

That's because it's just not any fun playing against Necrons.

May all of your games be against Necrons, forevermore... Enjoy!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Grimgold wrote:
8th ed is coming, and if you are not one of the five flavors of power armor balance will be a crap shoot, so who knows you might get your wish. I hope it's like 3rd all over again, they reset the rules, release army lists for each faction (ala sigmar war scrolls), have a few force org charts that all factions can use to mix up list building and go from there.

I'd support that.

I enjoy necrons 10X more than eldar.

Martel732 wrote:
I enjoy necrons 10X more than eldar.

I don't. Then again my FLGS has about four Necron players and only one Eldar player (who is also me) so I may have a selection bias issue going.

Both can stone-wall any effort you make to play the game, though they go about it differently (Necrons by having a single unit with a couple of characters up and ignore an entire army's worth of firepower, Eldar by up and removing your army).

Martel732 wrote:
I enjoy necrons 10X more than eldar.

At least when you get a chance to shoot at Eldar some stuff dies even if they're still horrifically overpowered, Necrons are just so...noninteractive, they push up onto the objectives and sit there until game end and it's like there was no point in bothering to roll any dice. The worst part is that they're not even a slow army, by turn 2 can have almost their entire army in or almost in your deployment zone if they really want

Martel732 wrote:
I enjoy necrons 10X more than eldar.

I bet you also enjoy whitewashing fences and scrubbing potblack, because that's what playing against Necrons is - it's a mindless, tedious chore that has basically no progress. You shoot like crazy, and Nothing Happens. Boring AF.

If necrons were as invincible as you guys claim we would be the top of the ITC chart instead of tied for 5th. Eldar are actually rated higher by quite a bit, so if you are playing Eldar and getting rallied by necrons it's not the army, it's probably you. Expert players can beat necrons without issue, and the eldar are heinously overtuned to begin with.

Reanimation Protocols is not THAT powerful. It's, at absolute best, a doubling of durability. You know what else has double durability? Double the number of bodies, like Orks or Guardsmen can field. I wasn't noticing anyone complaining about those guys being OP.

BA can actually break Necrons in CC and will almost certainly catch them.

RP is a LOT more than that. At a minimum, it's 4+, re-rolling 1s for Decurion - that's more than doubling right there (21/36 = 2.4x). More likely, there's a Res orb, re-rolling the fails (27/36 = 4x). And then there are the 2+ HQs tanking the hits and still getting the rerolled 4+(34.5/36 = 24x). So, no.

Change RP to rename of 4+ FNP, with no modifiers, and I'll be fine with Necrons staying in the game.

That's only if you're from the Reclamation Legion, and within 12" of the Overlord. I'll give you that Necrons are usually run in a Decurion, so it's a 4+ rather than a 5+, but do remember a Res Orb is a one-use only item that costs 25 flipping points. So in other words, when you start shooting at that Death Star (that probably moves 6" a turn, after its once per game Deep Strike) and they pop the Res Orb... Just stop shooting at them. Wait for next turn, kill some other things.

Also, Necrons have ONE 2+ HQ and ONE Artifact Armour that grants a 2+.

 Grimgold wrote:
If necrons were as invincible as you guys claim we would be the top of the ITC chart instead of tied for 5th. Eldar are actually rated higher by quite a bit, so if you are playing Eldar and getting rallied by necrons it's not the army, it's probably you. Expert players can beat necrons without issue, and the eldar are heinously overtuned to begin with.

One must keep in mind that the ITC has rules, restrictions, and other such things which make it different from the way many other people play, particularly straight rulebook play. That said, Necrons do have some hardcounters, Eldar are one of them, Eldar are without a doubt monstrously broken, and there are other things broken, but that doesn't mean that Necrons aren't also a wee bit overboard themselves, particularly against armies that aren't also in the top group. A lot of those top armies have to be built in a relatively specific way to compete well, often involving lots of weird allies shennanigans and psychic powers and the like, stuff that probably wasn't intended but the crappiness of the rules allows through, while the Necrons just take their basic book detachment as given and go.

 JNAProductions wrote:
Reanimation Protocols is not THAT powerful. It's, at absolute best, a doubling of durability. You know what else has double durability? Double the number of bodies, like Orks or Guardsmen can field. I wasn't noticing anyone complaining about those guys being OP.

Because units like Guardsmen, despite being much cheaper, aren't bringing double the practical durability and definitely not double the tactical value. A Decurion Warrior is, at worst 200% more durable than a Guardsmen against something like an S10 AP1 Ignores Cover weapon, but the lighter the weapons get the greater that durability. A 13pt Decurion Warrior for instance is 270% more resilient than a Guardsmen against Scatterlaser fire, and has 640% the durability against bolter fire versus that of a guardsmen, but is only 260% more expensive, and at the same time brings greater firepower, CC ability, and Ld-based resiliency to boot. Lets look at another example between similarly priced models with the same codex. A Wraith is the same price as an Ogryn but has double the move speed and isn't slowed by terrain, is Ld10 & Fearless instead of Ld6/7 Stubborn, has 1 less wound but gets a 3+ invul save instead of a worthless 5+ armor, is way killier with S6 rending attacks, and can be made to benefit from Decurion RP to boot while an Ogryn unit gets a few BS3 S5 shots in exchange

 Grimgold wrote:
If necrons were as invincible as you guys claim we would be the top of the ITC chart instead of tied for 5th. Eldar are actually rated higher by quite a bit, so if you are playing Eldar and getting rallied by necrons it's not the army, it's probably you. Expert players can beat necrons without issue, and the eldar are heinously overtuned to begin with.

If not for the fact that Eldar are a hard counter to Necrons, the meta would look very different. Especially as the ITC doesn't follow the rulebook at all, by banning Unbound play.

I primarily play Guard.

Except when Necrons hit the board - then I take max S(D) Eldar.

Yeah, I was drawing a false equivalency there. (Do note, though, that against a S10 anything, Necrons only get a 5+ Reanimate, since ID reduces it by 1.)

But the point remains, if you struggle to kill Necrons too much, chances are, you struggle to kill anything else too. For instance, let's take 143 points of Necron Warriors in a Decurion (but away form the Overlord) versus 140 of Tactical Marines. (That's 11 bodies to 10.)

If you use bolter fire to kill them, it takes 60 hits to kill the Marines, while it takes 88 hits to kill the Warriors. A 47% Increase in durability.

If you use heavy bolter fire to kill them, it takes 45 hits to kill the Marines, while it takes 33 to kill the Warriors. Marines, in this case, are 36% more durable (assuming no cover).

If you use heavy bolter fire to kill them, with a 5+ cover save, it still takes 45 hits to down the Marines, while it now takes 49.5 to kill the Warriors. 10% more durable.

If you use assault cannon fire to kill them, it takes around 33 hits to kill the Marines, while it takes 26.4 to kill the Warriors. Marines are 25% more durable.

If you use assault cannon fire to kill them, with a 5+ cover save, it takes now around 34 hits to kill the Marines, while it takes 39.6 to kill the Warriors. 16% more durable.

If you use plasma fire to kill them, it takes a mere 12 hits to kill the Marines, while it takes 26.4 to kill the Warriors. 120% more durable. (Cover saves affect them equally.)

If you use melta fire, though, it takes the same 12 to kill the Marines, but only takes 19.8 to kill the Warriors. 65% more durable. (Same math applies to the much easier to get lots of hits with Battle Cannon. Also Lascannons.)

If you use lasgun fire, it takes 90 hits to kill the Marines, while it takes 132 to kill the Warriors. 47% more durable again.

So, against small arms fire, Warriors are about 50% harder to kill than Marines. Against AP 1-3, they're a whipping 120% more durable, though that drops to 65% if it doubles them out. AP 4 is a sweet spot that actually sees Marines more durable, point for point, than Warriors, unless Warriors get cover.

Overall, Necrons are definitely tougher than equivalent points of marines. But they lack stuff like Special Weapons or ATSKNF.

Those are pretty large resiliency gains, particularlly with the more common weapons like bolters and plasma weapons. Needing ~50% more firepower to kill a unit that isn't any more expensive (often less so) is no mean feat to bring to bear.

Sure they don't have ATSKNF or special weapons, but having Ld10 instead of 9 or even 8 and Gauss mitigates that (to what degree is debatable, but it's meaningful nonetheless).

More to the point, one will notice the Marine armies doing well are either built around Deathstars of some sort or are strong because they get hundreds of points worth of free stuff and scoring units and getting to play with a 20-25% points advantage over their opponent, which goes to show both how absurd the game in general has become and how powerful RP is.

Yeah. I'd be fine seeing RP nerfed (or probably just an across-the-board points increase on Necron stuff) at the same time as stuff like SM and Eldar get nerfed.

Yeah, there's no one thing the game needs to fix, there's a whole range of issues, from RP to Eldar in general, Formation ridiculousness and D weapons, Allies abuse, etc, and really the game could probably do best with a total reboot re-write at this point.

Not that I expect GW to execute that well...

Martel732 wrote:
I enjoy necrons 10X more than eldar.

QFTT

 Grimgold wrote:
If necrons were as invincible as you guys claim we would be the top of the ITC chart instead of tied for 5th. Eldar are actually rated higher by quite a bit, so if you are playing Eldar and getting rallied by necrons it's not the army, it's probably you. Expert players can beat necrons without issue, and the eldar are heinously overtuned to begin with.

Believe it or not it's possible to win an incredibly boring game.

 AnomanderRake wrote:

 Grimgold wrote:
If necrons were as invincible as you guys claim we would be the top of the ITC chart instead of tied for 5th. Eldar are actually rated higher by quite a bit, so if you are playing Eldar and getting rallied by necrons it's not the army, it's probably you. Expert players can beat necrons without issue, and the eldar are heinously overtuned to begin with.

Believe it or not it's possible to win an incredibly boring game.

It's also possible to lose an incredibly fun game.

And that's why we play, for fun, not the winning.

There's nothing fun about playing against Eldar.

I get my face stomped by an Eldar player on a regular basis, It's not fun but I prefer it over Necrons, as said above, they aren't better but they are just a boring army, maybe not as a player, but they are as an outsider looking in

I'd like to see some streamlining of the rules.

Each army tends to have special rules that come into effect, so why not move them into the psychic phase and just rename it the powers phase? Necrons artifact abilities, Tau shenannigans, etc. could all be shuffled into there.

I'd also like there to be a lot less of rules exceptions. For example, leadership/morale. It's a whole and core part of the game, but there's a way to invalidate it called fearless. Oh, but if you're a smurf, you get ATSKNF, which is super fearless without any of the drawbacks. You can't assault out of transports...unless you take this vehicle or this formation, which half the armies don't have.

I'd also like to see close combat return to a more dangerous bit. I feel like shooting has become way, way too powerful. Returning Sweeping Advance and Consolidate into new combat (instead of just sitting out in the open with your thumb up your butt) would help tremendously with that.

As a bit of nostalgia, I'd like to see Genestealers and Wyches return to something that you feared seeing on the battlefield and tried your best to keep them from hitting your lines.

Consolidating into a new combat seems like the worst thing ever.

 Bobthehero wrote:
Consolidating into a new combat seems like the worst thing ever.

Says the guy who wants to see SHOOTING buffed.

Yup, I am consistent, if anything

One sweeping advance per unit per turn might be ok. Base it off an initiative test and disallow multicharges on it.
HTH needs some form of boost.....

I think what's being suggested is not you consolidate into another combat and ACTUALLY FIGHT, you just consolidate into another unit and stay locked, fighting on the next turn.

Rather than buffing melee with "consolidate into new combat" I'd rather buff them with, say, a rule that's called 'Blitz', or something similar, which forces any unit to snap fire against your newly consolidated melee unit if they are within 12" and have LOF to the unit, ONLY works if you win the very first assault phase which you declared assault so it doesn't punish you for killing a unit the moment you touch it which then leaves you wide open, which leads to bizarre unit building were you design a unit and hope to kill just enough to matter but not enough to win first round of combat.

Furthermore nerf overwatch in its current state, as it stands it's a mindless no-brainer choice whether you want to overwatch or not, there's currently downside to declaring overwatch and it needs to be like the intercepter rule, were you lose your next shooting phase.

If you're only hitting on 6s *and* losing your next shooting phase, then one might as well not have overwatch at all.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If you're only hitting on 6s *and* losing your next shooting phase, then one might as well not have overwatch at all.

Good, less useless dice rolls that slows the game down while having either too much effect or none at all.

Indeed.

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think what's being suggested is not you consolidate into another combat and ACTUALLY FIGHT, you just consolidate into another unit and stay locked, fighting on the next turn.

This is what I was suggesting. Like it was in...gosh, 5th edition?

Unit A charges Unit B. Unit A wins combat, sweeping advances, and destroys Unit B. Unit A is then able to consolidate into Unit C, who had the misfortune of being within range of Unit A. Next turn, Unit C cannot fire because it is locked into close combat with Unit A. Unit A does not have additional attacks for charging, but combat resolves as if it were the second round of combat (no extra attacks for charging, no diminished initiative, etc.).

Altima wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think what's being suggested is not you consolidate into another combat and ACTUALLY FIGHT, you just consolidate into another unit and stay locked, fighting on the next turn.

This is what I was suggesting. Like it was in...gosh, 5th edition?

Unit A charges Unit B. Unit A wins combat, sweeping advances, and destroys Unit B. Unit A is then able to consolidate into Unit C, who had the misfortune of being within range of Unit A. Next turn, Unit C cannot fire because it is locked into close combat with Unit A. Unit A does not have additional attacks for charging, but combat resolves as if it were the second round of combat (no extra attacks for charging, no diminished initiative, etc.).

That's not how it worked in 5th..?

 Zewrath wrote:

Altima wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think what's being suggested is not you consolidate into another combat and ACTUALLY FIGHT, you just consolidate into another unit and stay locked, fighting on the next turn.

This is what I was suggesting. Like it was in...gosh, 5th edition?

Unit A charges Unit B. Unit A wins combat, sweeping advances, and destroys Unit B. Unit A is then able to consolidate into Unit C, who had the misfortune of being within range of Unit A. Next turn, Unit C cannot fire because it is locked into close combat with Unit A. Unit A does not have additional attacks for charging, but combat resolves as if it were the second round of combat (no extra attacks for charging, no diminished initiative, etc.).

That's not how it worked in 5th..?

3rd edition had it like that, 4th edition I'm unsure of it.

Consolidate-into-new-combat was probably the most complained-about thing in the 4e core book.

 Ratius wrote:
One sweeping advance per unit per turn might be ok. Base it off an initiative test and disallow multicharges on it.
HTH needs some form of boost.....

I agree with this, if you give every ork unit in the game +3 initiative. Otherwise this just benefits SMs and Eldar.. the two weakest armies in the game....wait.....

Yeah, consolidations into new combats were possible in 3E and 4E, and had lots of issues, particularly in conjunction with some of the terrain rules, and resulted in some assault units never facing a single round of fire and killing a new unit every turn.

Removing it was a good move for the game, but they really do need to reintroduce assaulting out of stationary transports and from walk-on reserve. That was unnecessary.

 ZebioLizard2 wrote:

 Zewrath wrote:

Altima wrote:

 JNAProductions wrote:
I think what's being suggested is not you consolidate into another combat and ACTUALLY FIGHT, you just consolidate into another unit and stay locked, fighting on the next turn.

This is what I was suggesting. Like it was in...gosh, 5th edition?

Unit A charges Unit B. Unit A wins combat, sweeping advances, and destroys Unit B. Unit A is then able to consolidate into Unit C, who had the misfortune of being within range of Unit A. Next turn, Unit C cannot fire because it is locked into close combat with Unit A. Unit A does not have additional attacks for charging, but combat resolves as if it were the second round of combat (no extra attacks for charging, no diminished initiative, etc.).

That's not how it worked in 5th..?

3rd edition had it like that, 4th edition I'm unsure of it.

4th you consolidated and got to fight again. Repeat until either you don't kill them all or they run out of things to consolidate into.

Sure would be nice to have force organization slots matter once again. And maybe infantry being viable instead of MCs.

Sure would be nice to have force organization slots matter once again.

I'm with you. Formations can be neat, but they take a lot of planning and pro/con list-building decisions away since you can often just have whatever you want and get some nifty bonus for doing so. I preferred it much simpler. Unfortunately, GW has found a way of essentially adding DLC to a tabletop game, and I can't see them straying from that model.

Formations absolutely need to be revisited by GW, just as the community really needs to get behind Unbound as a preferred way to play.

Formations are fine. There's only a few offenders. Formations are more balanced than C:Eldar for sure.

I'd like to see some Kill Team rules that allow for a PvE experience in a tabletop game where me and my mom can team up against enemies who are controlled by dictated reactions to the players' choices rather than either player's direct whims. Like, just an option for WH40k that involves something that isn't player-versus-player.

If you're wondering who else that would be useful for, well, basically anyone who ever wanted a solo version of WH40k comes to mind.

Anything that gives freebies is not fine, getting free abilities/wargear/units/etc in this way is fundamentally bad game design. Formations, multiple detachments, and unbound all really need to go, though I'd agree that if the other two exist that banning Unbound is ridiculous.

As long as the WK is 295 pts, we might as well have formations too. There is nothing more game breaking than miscosted units. Not free rules, not free abilities, nothing. Because people exascerbate the miscosting by spamming those units.

Martel732 wrote:
As long as the WK is 295 pts, we might as well have formations too. There is nothing more game breaking than miscosted units. Not free rules, not free abilities, nothing. Because people exascerbate the miscosting by spamming those units.

Well the WK being absurdly underpriced is something that absolutely should be fixed as well, that's an inexcusable game design issue, but getting to play a 2500pt army vs a 2000pt army because of formations is also just as broken.

 Vaktathi wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
As long as the WK is 295 pts, we might as well have formations too. There is nothing more game breaking than miscosted units. Not free rules, not free abilities, nothing. Because people exascerbate the miscosting by spamming those units.

Well the WK being absurdly underpriced is something that absolutely should be fixed as well, that's an inexcusable game design issue, but getting to play a 2500pt army vs a 2000pt army because of formations is also just as broken.

Yes, but you can only get that bonus once. By the time you add up the miscostedness of the Eldar, my BA at 2K are fighting a 4K list. If you've got miscosted units, formations are just icing.

If a player owns X, Y & Z, nobody should give him grief if he wants to play them together. That's the entire point of the game. He might not get any bonuses, but GW is absolutely right that Unbound should be a primary and preferred way to play.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If a player owns X, Y & Z, nobody should give him grief if he wants to play them together. That's the entire point of the game. He might not get any bonuses, but GW is absolutely right that Unbound should be a primary and preferred way to play.

I'm gonna grief people for WK/scatbike until they are fixed. I don't care how much someone likes those models. They ruin afternoons.

Yeah, because a single WK and trio of scatbikes wrecks Superfriends and Gladius... :eyeroll:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Yeah, because a single WK and trio of scatbikes wrecks Superfriends and Gladius... :eyeroll:

Superfriends and gladius I don't have? And they never come in singles or in trios. Dual WK and dozens of bikes is more like it. Because it multiplies the undercostedness to create a list with ar more points than some free Rhinos.

Except, that's not what you wrote. You wrote:

Martel732 wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
If a player owns X, Y & Z, nobody should give him grief if he wants to play them together. That's the entire point of the game. He might not get any bonuses, but GW is absolutely right that Unbound should be a primary and preferred way to play.

I'm gonna grief people for WK/scatbike until they are fixed. I don't care how much someone likes those models. They ruin afternoons.

You didn't specify dual WK nor dozens of bikes. You simply wrote "WK/scatbike" which match the "single WK and trio of scatbikes" that I called out. If you wanted to talk about something different, you should have been clearer.

The fact is, you have Red Marines. Superfriends and Gladius are options for you. And those builds are just as effective in the tournament environment that you care so much about.

Insert Orks, or Dark Eldar or whatever. Even non-gladius marines. Compared to the rest of the game, Eldar are almost universally undercosted, with some models being worse offenders than others. Eldar need serious nerfs across the board to even consider even minor buffs at this point. Take them back to 6th ed minus the crazy ass wave serpent and then we can talk.

Martel732 wrote:
Eldar need serious nerfs across the board to even consider even minor buffs at this point.

Rangers, Banshees and Storms? Nope.

I've got another view on the Gladius. Prior to the introduction of that detachment, no one was bringing to tournaments Marine lists that consisted primarily of Tac, Dev, and Assault Squads. One might take from this that they are overcosted compared to other units in the game.

Formations give an incentive to play armies that are thematically representative of what factions typically field. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I've got another view on the Gladius. Prior to the introduction of that detachment, no one was bringing to tournaments Marine lists that consisted primarily of Tac, Dev, and Assault Squads. One might take from this that they are overcosted compared to other units in the game.

Formations give an incentive to play armies that are thematically representative of what factions typically field. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Those units are absolutely overcosted in 7th.

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I've got another view on the Gladius. Prior to the introduction of that detachment, no one was bringing to tournaments Marine lists that consisted primarily of Tac, Dev, and Assault Squads. One might take from this that they are overcosted compared to other units in the game.

Formations give an incentive to play armies that are thematically representative of what factions typically field. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

Then that's an issue that should be fixed by addressing the issues with the units, not by giving them gobs of free stuff that doesn't necessarily have those issues. That's a really hamfisted band-aid that introduces a whole lot more issues than it solves, particularly against armies where units like Tacs and Assault marines work just fine.

If GW wants people to play armies built around classic fluff based composition, their rules should fundamentally be built around that, not by just going "eh, give 'em several hundred points of free scoring transports" after the fact. That's awful game design.

One will notice that even with Gladius armies, people still try to minimize the number of tac, dev, and assault models and splurge on the "cooler" or more powerful stuff.

There are issues both with cost and scale, it's hard to make something like a Tac marine feel meaningful when they're facing Knights, Aircraft, Titans, Deathstars, etc. They've bloated the game far beyond what it should be, and turning 2000pt armies into 2500pt armies for free is a really terrible way of addressing that.

Martel732 wrote:
Insert Orks, or Dark Eldar or whatever. Even non-gladius marines. Compared to the rest of the game, Eldar are almost universally undercosted, with some models being worse offenders than others. Eldar need serious nerfs across the board to even consider even minor buffs at this point. Take them back to 6th ed minus the crazy ass wave serpent and then we can talk.

Well, which would you rather have in your army. You can only have one in EVERY situation, you can't pick and choose so in every situation you have to keep that unit.

Your options are 4 Meganobz T4 2W 2+ save, Slow and purposeful, No dakka worth mentioning, LD 7.

OR

5 Wraithguard, T6 1W 3+ save, All come standard with D-Cannons and fearless.

Both cost 160pts, Orks get 3 more wounds but at T4 so they can easily be doubled out and with LD7 they lose 1 model they have a pretty good chance of running away.

So which would you prefer?

Or conversely we could look at the Wraithknight at 295pts and compare it to the Morkanaut with a KFF. Which of those would you prefer

 Grand.Master.Raziel wrote:
I've got another view on the Gladius. Prior to the introduction of that detachment, no one was bringing to tournaments Marine lists that consisted primarily of Tac, Dev, and Assault Squads. One might take from this that they are overcosted compared to other units in the game.

Formations give an incentive to play armies that are thematically representative of what factions typically field. I don't think there's anything wrong with that.

If the Gladius required 10-man squads and only gave Rhinos (JPs or Bikes to the ASMs), then that would be fine.

I'd like to see army balance get buffed.

Danny slag wrote:
I'd like to see army balance get buffed.

Didn't GW remove that back in 6th?

 vipoid wrote:

Danny slag wrote:
I'd like to see army balance get buffed.

Didn't GW remove that back in 6th?

Eldar.

 Backspacehacker wrote:
Terminators

Then Vehicles i guess.

Should've closed this thread after the second post.