Switch Theme:

Should Unique Characters Be Unique?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


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.




Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

 vict0988 wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
Why aren't Guard Tank Commanders OP broken cheese spamming broken trait combos and one shotting Primarchs? Oh, maybe smash captains et al. are an outlier and are not representative of the majority of generic characters. Much like how Castellans are not representative of all LoW.

No relics or Stratagems and no personal WL traits that are near anywhere as good as the army-wide or aura WL traits. Tank Commanders did immediately start using the new relic BC and if they had a WL trait that increased the damage of one of their weapons by 1 they might use that, especially if they also had Stratagems that let them shoot twice, re-roll failed hit rolls with another Stratagem etc. etc. The reason Smash Captains became OP was #1 they were too cheap, #2 they could stack buffs. Tank Commanders are already cheap enough to be good, they just need more stacking buffs to become insane. Stacking abilities is extremely dangerous, as we saw when stacking CP regeneration was allowed, suddenly instead of increasing CP by 50% you increase it by 150-200% because you take 2-3 Relics/Traits that generate CP. Look at Bloodletters, Obliterators, Doom/Jinx all of these are better than the sum of their parts because two 50% increases will result in 1,5x1,5=2,25x damage not 1+0,5+0,5=2x damage, that's free damage that you can build into your list by finding the right combos. The CA heroic rules were a bit half-baked and I did start trying to assign pts to all the abilities, but it'd be a huge mess and require hundreds of competitive games before it became balanced. GW would have to lower balance for at least 3 months in the competitive scene to make somewhat balanced costs for these buffs and another 6-24 months to get rid of the last OP combos within such a system. At worst we could see the game turning into 100% Character hammer which probably means another round of Castellan domination because someone thinks that +1 damage to one shooting weapon is worth 5 pts.



All you've proven is that new units can be broken if they're not balanced in the context of their codex. Congratulations, water is wet and the sky is blue. And guess what, in the context of Tau there are no relics/traits that could possibly make them OP (seriously, they all are designed to buff the suit commanders), so the point is moot until the codex gets an update.

Did you even read it? It has nothing to do with the base unit, it might be perfectly fair and balanced, but if you stack enough buffs that are anything but completely trash on top of a unit, that unit will one-shot Primarchs. So if you add re-roll hit rolls of 1, +1 to wound and +1 D on top of a Tank Commander for prices that might individually be fair enough, then that all told will become OP, because the buffs will total more than the sum of their parts. The re-roll 1s to hit will mean more wound rolls, then those extra wound rolls will have an easier time wounding and all the extra hits and extra wounds will do more damage. Either the abilities are useless on their own and balanced when taken together or they are OP when taken together. You can't just have infinite possibilities without also creating infinitely many OP combos. The larger the number of combos, the larger the number of broken combos. Saying that there are no buffs that could become OP for Commanders seems uninformed, Commanders are already OP, giving them builds that are even more OP is a bad idea.
Good thing no one was talking about infinite possibilities.

Lots=/=infinite.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





The only generic character more powerful than named characters is a smash captain.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/06 17:07:24


 
   
Made in us
Mekboy Hammerin' Somethin'




Douglasville, GA

Depends on your definition of "more powerful". I'm sure many Ork players would say that the Supa Shokk Attack Gun Mek is more powerful than many of their named characters. The Index Biker Boss as well.
   
Made in dk
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot






 JNAProductions wrote:
Good thing no one was talking about infinite possibilities.

Lots=/=infinite.

Ah, so introducing lots of broken combos is fine? Why don't one of you write up that magically balanced system and then I'll tear it apart, if I'm not able to then I'll enlist the help of a dozen other people to help me break your system. Go on, take all the time you need. You'll find that you have to create individually terrible buffs for combos to not be OP or otherwise create a byzantine system of checks and balances between every combo. It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's so hard that it's very unlikely GW will do it well given how hard they gakked the Relic/Trait system with more than half the options being absolutely terrible. You might argue that it's a question of a lack of granularity that your system won't have, but GW could've added S and D to all the gak weapons until they were good, they could have balanced the extra attacks a BA character can do by limiting them to S4 AP- or not have them carry over to a potential second round of attacks. GW failed in creating a balanced hero system and I don't trust them to replace my Unique characters with a balanced and fun make-your-own Unique character.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/06 16:16:16


 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 flandarz wrote:
Depends on your definition of "more powerful". I'm sure many Ork players would say that the Supa Shokk Attack Gun Mek is more powerful than many of their named characters. The Index Biker Boss as well.
I'm talking about direct comparison which this thread is about.
Zhadsnark is stronger than biker bawss.
Buzzgobb is stronger than a big mek.

Smash captains are stronger than any other jumppack HQ's in BA's arsenal due to how tailored (with a thunderhammer) he could be made to do what he does best. Other named JP characters are better suited for babysitting other units to provide buffs and can't maximize on the CP expenditures the ways smash captains do.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/06 16:20:18


 
   
Made in us
Rotting Sorcerer of Nurgle




In My Lab

 vict0988 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Good thing no one was talking about infinite possibilities.

Lots=/=infinite.

Ah, so introducing lots of broken combos is fine? Why don't one of you write up that magically balanced system and then I'll tear it apart, if I'm not able to then I'll enlist the help of a dozen other people to help me break your system. Go on, take all the time you need. You'll find that you have to create individually terrible buffs for combos to not be OP or otherwise create a byzantine system of checks and balances between every combo. It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's so hard that it's very unlikely GW will do it well given how hard they gakked the Relic/Trait system with more than half the options being absolutely terrible. You might argue that it's a question of a lack of granularity that your system won't have, but GW could've added S and D to all the gak weapons until they were good, they could have balanced the extra attacks a BA character can do by limiting them to S4 AP- or not have them carry over to a potential second round of attacks. GW failed in creating a balanced hero system and I don't trust them to replace my Unique characters with a balanced and fun make-your-own Unique character.
GW charges each player anywhere from about $40 to several hundred dollars on rules alone.

They're a multi-billion (I believe) dollar corporation.

I doubt I could make characters that both have, say, a dozen options each and still have them be balanced. But I'm one guy. GW damn well should be able to.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 vict0988 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Good thing no one was talking about infinite possibilities.

Lots=/=infinite.

Ah, so introducing lots of broken combos is fine? Why don't one of you write up that magically balanced system and then I'll tear it apart, if I'm not able to then I'll enlist the help of a dozen other people to help me break your system. Go on, take all the time you need. You'll find that you have to create individually terrible buffs for combos to not be OP or otherwise create a byzantine system of checks and balances between every combo. It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's so hard that it's very unlikely GW will do it well given how hard they gakked the Relic/Trait system with more than half the options being absolutely terrible. You might argue that it's a question of a lack of granularity that your system won't have, but GW could've added S and D to all the gak weapons until they were good, they could have balanced the extra attacks a BA character can do by limiting them to S4 AP- or not have them carry over to a potential second round of attacks. GW failed in creating a balanced hero system and I don't trust them to replace my Unique characters with a balanced and fun make-your-own Unique character.
The point of this discussion is that there are occasions where you're forced to take a named character because there aren't any other generic HQ you can take. I don't think the suggestion here isn't to make character customization fully open (he has a jumppack equipped bike, with thunderhammer, stormshield, combi plasma, plasma pistol & melta bomb so he has T5, deepstrike, 3++, etc), but an option to take a slightly less powerful generic HQ unit that better fills the role in your army.

Take for example, in my army I am forced to take a sammael because I have no access to a reroll hit aura that can keep up with my army because there is no Master on Bike. I'm not asking for a Grandmaster on Bike - just a master. On bike. Then I need to take a Talonmaster as my warlord because I need to take "Grand Strategist" (although he's an auto take in ravenwing list anyways) since Sammael is locked to 'Master of Maneuver'. The proposed master on bike would have less movement (since its not a spiffed up last jet-bike of the imperium) and forego 'reroll to hit rolls of 1's for all <Dark Angels>' for just 'reroll to hit rolls made by RAVENWING units' and not locked to 'master of maneuver' as my default WL trait for slightly cheaper price tag (maybe like 20pt less).

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/09/06 16:34:18


 
   
Made in dk
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot






 skchsan wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
 JNAProductions wrote:
Good thing no one was talking about infinite possibilities.

Lots=/=infinite.

Ah, so introducing lots of broken combos is fine? Why don't one of you write up that magically balanced system and then I'll tear it apart, if I'm not able to then I'll enlist the help of a dozen other people to help me break your system. Go on, take all the time you need. You'll find that you have to create individually terrible buffs for combos to not be OP or otherwise create a byzantine system of checks and balances between every combo. It's not that it's impossible, it's that it's so hard that it's very unlikely GW will do it well given how hard they gakked the Relic/Trait system with more than half the options being absolutely terrible. You might argue that it's a question of a lack of granularity that your system won't have, but GW could've added S and D to all the gak weapons until they were good, they could have balanced the extra attacks a BA character can do by limiting them to S4 AP- or not have them carry over to a potential second round of attacks. GW failed in creating a balanced hero system and I don't trust them to replace my Unique characters with a balanced and fun make-your-own Unique character.
The point of this discussion is that there are occasions where you're forced to take a named character because there aren't any other generic HQ you can take. I don't think the suggestion here isn't to make character customization fully open (he has a jumppack equipped bike, with thunderhammer, stormshield, combi plasma, plasma pistol & melta bomb so he has T5, deepstrike, 3++, etc), but an option to take a slightly less powerful generic HQ unit that better fills the role in your army.

I thought that was exactly the intent of this discussion, should Unique HQs be removed from the game and be replaced with a set of rules that can emulate what they currently do? So no Belial, instead we get a Deathwing Master with special rule options so he can play at being Belial.
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





 vict0988 wrote:
I thought that was exactly the intent of this discussion, should Unique HQs be removed from the game and be replaced with a set of rules that can emulate what they currently do? So no Belial, instead we get a Deathwing Master with special rule options so he can play at being Belial.
It's been discussed that the ceiling for generic HQ customization should be capped at its equivalent named character, where some people agreed and some thought named characters should still have something that sets them apart even if its slight. The problematic aspect of this is that GW is not known for their ability to make balanced rulesets, so your worries aren't fully unjustified, and has been noted so since the first page of this discussion.

Another issue that was also brought up is that sometimes you have to take your army as 'count-as' parent army despite the freedom granted. (i.e. 'for example, Azrael is the Supreme Grandmaster of Dark Angels and not that of successor chapters.')

This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2019/09/06 17:19:05


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 vict0988 wrote:
Dandelion wrote:

All you've proven is that new units can be broken if they're not balanced in the context of their codex. Congratulations, water is wet and the sky is blue. And guess what, in the context of Tau there are no relics/traits that could possibly make them OP (seriously, they all are designed to buff the suit commanders), so the point is moot until the codex gets an update.

Did you even read it? It has nothing to do with the base unit, it might be perfectly fair and balanced, but if you stack enough buffs that are anything but completely trash on top of a unit, that unit will one-shot Primarchs.


The keyword being "if". All I want is to just add "tank commander" to the list of available datasheets. That's it, no other changes. You're the one suggesting they must also come with dozens of potential buffs that can stack. Worst case scenario we stack a good relic with a good warlord trait which is exactly what we have now for every single generic character. Yet for some reason it's hypothetical Tau Tank Commanders that could abuse the current system the most. Despite the fact that suit commanders already exist and get far better relics.
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





Sgt. Cortez wrote:
Coming from lotr I was always surprised how few characters there are in 40K. If anything I'd say keep them special, they should give the army something unique you can't do with a generic character. HOWEVER with the subfactions in 8th it'd be cool to have some kind of additional special rule for subfaction characters that don't have a named character (with a model). I know, there's the warlord trait already, but named characters have that AND something else. So basically, as long as there's not a named character for every subfaction give the factions that don't have one the ability to make one out of their generic chars.


problem is subfactions without a special character tend to be, by definition, ones GW tends to ignore. (notice Ultramarines have the most characters?) the best we can hope for is GW makes a ton of money off the Marine codex supplements, eneugh so that they decide through supplements and campaign books to do this for other subfactions and thus produce more characters. making special chars now is a pain for GW though as they produce them in plastic rather then resin (which is easier to make a model cheap)

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





BrianDavion wrote:
making special chars now is a pain for GW though as they produce them in plastic rather then resin (which is easier to make a model cheap)
I see where you're getting at, but not quite true.

Plastic injection molds cost more to produce but they boast far better durability against wears during production.

Silicon molds for the old metal models probably needs to be replaced after around 4-5 casts, more if they have some proprietary silicon compound that lasts longer. Also take into consideration miscasts and the wasted production cost on that.

I think it has to do with more potential sales (you're not going to buy a special named character more than once or twice) and projected demands that determine whether a unit goes thru the "plastic rubicon". And, it would be easier to make a new model instead of importing an existing model (since you have to 3d scan them, import it, clean up the meshes, revise it, etc - much easier to start from scratch) into plastic mold.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/06 17:39:37


 
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





 skchsan wrote:
BrianDavion wrote:
making special chars now is a pain for GW though as they produce them in plastic rather then resin (which is easier to make a model cheap)
I see where you're getting at, but not quite true.

Plastic injection molds cost more to produce but they boast far better durability against wears during production.

Silicon molds for the old metal models probably needs to be replaced after around 4-5 casts, more if they have some proprietary silicon compound that lasts longer. Also take into consideration miscasts and the wasted production cost on that.

I think it has to do with more potential sales (you're not going to buy a special named character more than once or twice) and projected demands that determine whether a unit goes thru the "plastic rubicon". And, it would be easier to make a new model instead of importing an existing model (since you have to 3d scan them, import it, clean up the meshes, revise it, etc - much easier to start from scratch) into plastic mold.


right hence a character of minor popularity may not be worth updating.

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in dk
Tail-spinning Tomb Blade Pilot






Dandelion wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:
Dandelion wrote:

All you've proven is that new units can be broken if they're not balanced in the context of their codex. Congratulations, water is wet and the sky is blue. And guess what, in the context of Tau there are no relics/traits that could possibly make them OP (seriously, they all are designed to buff the suit commanders), so the point is moot until the codex gets an update.

Did you even read it? It has nothing to do with the base unit, it might be perfectly fair and balanced, but if you stack enough buffs that are anything but completely trash on top of a unit, that unit will one-shot Primarchs.


The keyword being "if". All I want is to just add "tank commander" to the list of available datasheets. That's it, no other changes. You're the one suggesting they must also come with dozens of potential buffs that can stack. Worst case scenario we stack a good relic with a good warlord trait which is exactly what we have now for every single generic character. Yet for some reason it's hypothetical Tau Tank Commanders that could abuse the current system the most. Despite the fact that suit commanders already exist and get far better relics.

The list of available datasheets? Available for what?
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 vict0988 wrote:

The list of available datasheets? Available for what?


Available to be used. "Existing datasheets" if that makes it clearer. Currently, there are no Tau Tank Commanders outside of one special character. A Vior'la detachment cannot have any tank commanders at all, under the current rules.

At the very least, the Guard have both Pask and generic tank commanders, so I don't know why people are suddenly so concerned about a Tau version of that.
   
Made in us
Stubborn Dark Angels Veteran Sergeant





Dandelion wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

The list of available datasheets? Available for what?


Available to be used. "Existing datasheets" if that makes it clearer. Currently, there are no Tau Tank Commanders outside of one special character. A Vior'la detachment cannot have any tank commanders at all, under the current rules.

At the very least, the Guard have both Pask and generic tank commanders, so I don't know why people are suddenly so concerned about a Tau version of that.
Agreed. Named characters, apart from reaaaaaaaaaally specific ones, should be souped-up versions of available generic characters and vice versa.

Although, I'd argue that some factions just have too much named characters.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/09/06 18:35:30


 
   
Made in ca
Courageous Space Marine Captain





 skchsan wrote:
Dandelion wrote:
 vict0988 wrote:

The list of available datasheets? Available for what?


Available to be used. "Existing datasheets" if that makes it clearer. Currently, there are no Tau Tank Commanders outside of one special character. A Vior'la detachment cannot have any tank commanders at all, under the current rules.

At the very least, the Guard have both Pask and generic tank commanders, so I don't know why people are suddenly so concerned about a Tau version of that.
Agreed. Named characters, apart from reaaaaaaaaaally specific ones, should be souped-up versions of available generic characters and vice versa.

Although, I'd argue that some factions just have too much named characters.


even as someone with an Ultramarines army I'd be a little annoyed if another new UM char popped up. I AM however absolutely happy to see the Iron Hands FINALLY getting a character

Ultimately the power of an Inquisitor extends as far as he can make it extend 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:
Wyldhunt wrote:
Personally, I like like unique characters with unique abilities, but they should actually be unique. If a unique character's gimmick is that they're just a generic character but better, they probably don't need to exist. Similarly, if they're just a generic character but with an extra buff slapped on that could probably be an option instead, they probably don't need to exist.

Eldrad Ulthran, for instance, is basically just a generic on-foot farseer but with a better invul save, and a slightly different weapon and superior psychic ability. He's not different from a generic footseer so much as he's just better. Eldrad, cool as I think he is, probably doesn't need to exist. You could make his superior psychic abilities into a "High Farseer" stratagem or a points cost upgrade and get pretty much the same result.

That necron guy who transforms mid-fight and whose name I"m blanking on, on the other hand, has a complicated gimmick that would be pretty tricky to balance as a generic option in a toolbox. It's cool that he exists, and I wouldn't want his transformation thing to be purchasable as a strat or piece of wargear.

Now, there can be exceptions to this. Lelith Hesperax's fluff is that she's just an extra special super duper talented succubus. But that's her thing, and the fluff kind of acknowledges it. It's not just Chapter Master X being arbitrarily better at punching that Chapter Master Y; being better at raw combat antics is her gimmick, and that gimmick is backed up by a couple of unique special rules that I probably wouldn't want to see turned into a generic, purchasable option. If you could purchase the special rules meant to make Lelith seem uniquely talented, then any piece of fluff claiming she's the peerless champion of the arenas rings hollow.


TLDR; special characters usually shouldn't be generic characters +, and I like the idea of bringing back more character customization options.

I don't think you explained very well the difference between Lelith and Eldrad, both are at the very top of their game,

Fair. You're probably right. I guess what I'm getting at is that, mechanically, Lelith's "choose a stat to buff every round" rule is just bookkeeping intensive enough that I wouldn't want to keep track of three of her throughout my army, AND it's a rule meant to demonstrate her dark muse level skills. Her unique mechanical gimmick and notorious martial superiority make her somewhat justified as being a unique character. Her superiority as a melee combatant is kind of canonical. Most dark eldar players seem to be pretty happy to acknowledge that Lelith is the best of the best, even if they want their own custom fluff succubus to be notoriously talented. If every other succubus on the table had the "dark muse level combat skill" special rule because they purchased it with points, then it weakens the narrative being expressed by that rule.

Now the fact that Lelith is less, in game terms, mathematically less killy than an optimized generic succubus is kind of a separate issue. Her unique rules give a narrative impression that she's capable of unique feats that are beyond most succubi .

Contrast this with Eldrad. Eldrad's "thing" is that he's the best at divining the future, especially when it comes to long-term prophecies. That shouldn't necessarily translate to casting more combat powers in a single game round, especially when those powers could potentially all just be mortal wound generators (although that probably wouldn't be an optimal use of his abilities.) My custom fluff farseer from Biel-Tan could reasonably be even better at juggling multiple short-term predictions and eldritch lightning bolts in the heat of battle than Eldrad; it wouldn't contradict Eldrad's gimmick. My Iyanden seer could reasonably have a 3+ invulnerable through better rune armor or better split-second jedi backflipping skills. Eldrad casts more powers faster, defends against damage better, and wields a more versatile melee weapon than other farseers even though that isn't really his gimmick.

So when the rules say, "No, your succubus can't do what Lelith does," I go, "Sure. Makes sense. My succubus isn't a dark muse like Lelith." It feels like her narrative niche is being protected. But when Eldrad is better at being a footseer than my footseer seemingly arbitrarily, it doesn't feel like it's justified by his fluff, and it doesn't feel like his rules are exploring an interesting mechanical gimmick; it feels like he's just a superior psychic combatant even though that isn't really what makes him noteworthy in the lore.



I don't think it's arbitrary that one Chapter Master is a better melee fighter than another, is it arbitrary when one Primarch is a better fighter than another?

Special rules are a tool for conveying the story of a unit. If a chapter master is mechanically the best at character vs character fights because he has a special rule and he has that special rule because his fluff says that he's a legendary duelist from a chapter that frequently wins the Feast of Blades, awesome. That's Fluff and crunch agreeing with each other. But if your elf wizard is the best at combat casting and invulnerable saves even though that's not really his fluff, then things get a little messy. Now, if I want rules for my own farseer whose combat casting prowess is part of his personality, I might be tempted to use Eldrad's rules to represent that because he's simply the best datasheet for conveying that story even though it doesn't actually fit Eldrad's story. Or, if I want to represent my feast of blades duelist chapter master, I might steal the rules of the Emperor's Children or Dante or whomever else seems the most mechanically optimized for melee because it fits the story better than a generic captain datasheet.

And some special characters just... kind of aren't all that special. Longstrike and Chronos are among the best tank commanders in their respective factions, but do they necessarily deserve to be the ONLY tank commanders for their factions? Wouldn't it be cool if you could scrape off the "Ultramarines" keyword on Chronos's datasheet and use him to represent your legendary Iron Hands tank commander? Wouldn't it be nice if Viorla or one of the other Septs could spit out a tank commander so that you weren't forced to play Tau sept to have a tank commander at all?


I know that some people like to introduce their own Mary Sue characters into settings, I like custom characters to a small degree but they should be part of the setting, the setting should not revolve around them because then it stops being the same setting. When you can make your psyker as powerful as Eldrad which I believe should be the strongest Aeldari psyker, then it's not your character put into the 40k universe, it's you shaping the 40k universe around your preferences. GW made a large push in CA2018 to make more Unique characters viable in 8th and I think they went too far in too many cases so you might be thinking "hey those abilities and buffs are really cool, I want my Craftworld to have access to those exact same rules", but I don't think it's the uniqueness of the rules that is a problem, they are just too cheap and you might not even want a super Farseer if it was costed appropriately. Maybe I'm just too much of a robot to understand.


I largely agree with this, and this is part of why I feel special characters work best as a way of providing different game mechanics rather than stronger game mechanics. Vulkan Hestan buffs flamers and meltaguns in your Salamanders army. He doesn't make flamer/melta heavy marine lists into the most optimized marine list in existence, but he gives you a reason to play with more flamers and meltas than you normally would, and this, in turn, might impact which units you take to deliver those meltas and flamers. He provides a different sort of playstyle without coming across as the most optimized of all beatsticks or even the most optimized of marine units.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/07 05:42:19


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: