Switch Theme:

Terrain, the 3rd opponent  [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
Decrepit Dakkanaut







Complaining on the internet isn't mutually exclusive with anything else.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/22 03:17:53


 
   
Made in us
Mutilatin' Mad Dok




Sedona, Arizona

Fixes for targeting would be crazy easy.

Make it so that bases are upward 'cylinders', you can target to (or from) any vertical area in that cylinder above the base. This allows for cool poses / overhangs without having the enemy unload into a dude's out stretched hand and wipe out his units.

There are size categories by which you know how 'tall' those targeting cylinders are. I.E. size 1 is one inch tall, size 2 is two inches, size 3 is three, so on and so forth. Admittedly you wouldn't want to use it quite like that (as a Space marine should be larger than a guardsmen). Worst case scenario is you create a 'size' stat and then turn it into a marketing opportunity by introducing a custom 'size measure' which has the specific heights marked for each potential point. Similar to how Kill Team has a custom tape measure.


Vehicles and other models without a base require a certain percentage / size value of the hull (again, you can use the custom tool for this if you want to be kind of dickish but also iron-clad in removing debate) to be visible both to be targeted AND to fire at targets. This does lead to edge-cases where your land raider can fire all of its guns through a suitably sized window, but it makes cover useful for vehicles and also removes the silliness of shooting all of your guns from a tiny wing-flap / antenna, or taking critical At fire on that same point.

From that point, with TLOS removed and targeting actually functional, terrain could be similarly abstracted (basically bring back 4th edition) so that more than just one type of terrain is useful, and everything doesn't have to be a solid L-shaped block.

Also, as has been noted, lethality should be scaled back immensely. Or GW should take advantage of un-capping stats and start making some units suitably tough in ways beyond invulnerable saves.

 welshhoppo wrote:

I like my Orks how I like my Emperor, dead.
 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






You don't even need to invent new sizes when everything is already categorized into swarm, infantry, beast, bikes, vehicles, monster, titanic and aircraft. You could just use those to define a default height for interacting with terrain.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/22 07:12:45


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Jidmah wrote:
You don't even need to invent new sizes when everything is already categorized into swarm, infantry, beast, bikes, vehicles, monster, titanic and aircraft. You could just use those to define a default height for interacting with terrain.

Given INFANTRY covers everything from a Grot up to at least a Custodes - and possibly larger things I can't recall - I can see why people might want something a little more granular.

*grabs Necron and SM 'dexes to look for large INFANTRY*

Hmm... Lokhurst Heavy Destroyers are pretty chunky, and both Skorpekh and Ophidian Destroyers seem quite big, too. I think Centurions are probably the chonkiest INFANTRY in the SM book.

Equally, quickly looking at MONSTER in the Necron book, the Reanimator and Doomstalker present very different heights to many Tyranid MONSTER units.

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 Dysartes wrote:
Given INFANTRY covers everything from a Grot up to at least a Custodes - and possibly larger things I can't recall - I can see why people might want something a little more granular.
Nah I'm with Jid on this one. I think the current amount of unit types would be enough for the cover system he's describing. It's plenty granular as it is.

There are weird edge cases and other infantry-based outliers (Oblits, Centurions, Ogryn), so you could introduce the concept of 'heavy infantry' or 'bulky infantry', but otherwise yeah, what Jid says rings true.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in de
Terrifying Doombull






Nuremberg

I think large infantry as a category would iron out most of the problems.

   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Terrain is already a super abstract, I believe that there is no need to introduce additional layers of complexity to add a false impression realism to it. It does have to be intuitive, but not realistic.

About infantry, both custodes/centurions and gretchin/rattlings are within an inch in size of your average marine or ork.
I really see no reason to differentiate between models at that level unless you want to have height stats accurate to a tenth of an inch for every model. Which essentially is just a more complicated way of doing TLOS.

For vehicles and monsters, I guess you could introduce an additional divider for smaller and larger models, but I also don't think such a differentiation would really add a lot to the game - there will always be an outlier or two where a cool looking model collides with an abstract rule.

In the end, you have to ask whether it's important to the game that a carnifex receives a different benefit from a 5" tall ruin than a doomstalker, and whether that difference is worth making the game more complex for it. Also keep in mind the implications this has for upgrades like adding wings to a hive tyrant.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KISS_principle

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2021/10/22 09:44:18


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

It's not really adding complexity though, as there are rules in place for transports and how they interact with particularly big models (Centurions, Ogryn, etc.).

Really it would be codifying what that type of infantry is, and applying that rule consistently across the game.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






Transport rules, eh?

This model has a transport capacity of 12 FLASH GITZ, SPECIALIST MOB INFANTRY or <CLAN> INFANTRY models. Each MEGA ARMOUR or JUMP PACK model takes up the space of 2 models.


This model has a transport capacity of 20 FLASH GITZ or <CLAN> INFANTRY models. If this model is equipped with a killkannon, it has a transport capacity of 12 FLASH GITZ or <CLAN> INFANTRY models instead. Each MEGA ARMOUR or JUMP PACK model takes up the space of 2 models. If this model has the GOFF keyword and is not equipped with an ’ard case or a kannon, killkannon or zzap gun, it can transport 1 GHAZGHKULL THRAKA. GHAZGHKULL THRAKA takes up the space of 18 models.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/22 10:20:32


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut







I would say those are about as simple as the 39 death guard stratagems divided into 7 categories.
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/22 11:30:24


Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer







He's referring to when you argued that learning 37 stratagem was a simple afair and anyone who couldn't is stupid, because its ironic that you're now arguing that extra size categories would complicate the game.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/22 11:47:02



 
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk







Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
That's it. And it would be universal.

The game would/should have a list of basic Actions that can be performed during the Command Phase, everything from 'Raise the Banners' to 'Go to Ground' to 'Covering Fire' to 'Sprint*' to 'Rend the Veil**' and so on.

*Give up shooting to roll an extra D6 for Advance.

**Give up casting psychic powers to make it easier for friendly psykers to cast.


Once again I totally agree with you in principle, but I'm not sure these actions make sense in the command phase without some kind of relation to the in-game resource meant to (clumsily) represent command and control (cp).

As you describe these actions, they more resemble the immediate orders of squad leaders that are situationally reacting to the enemy in order to achieve their objectives. To me, these are better represented in the individual phases of the game that relate to the action that is being forgone, which also makes them easier to remember than declaring them all in one phase.

Conversely, I believe that the command phase could better represent the difficulties of battlefield command and control with a few small changes (guard players will recognize this):

1. Represent the chain of command by making stratagems issued by HQ models on the table rather than an omniscient player.

2. Give HQ units a command range beyond which they cannot issue stratagems to units. For army wide stratagems, I'm not sure quite how to represent this but I believe an answer exists. Warlord gets a bonus to this range.

3. For a stratagem to "go off" make the unit receiving the order succeed a leadership test to represent that unit's officer's ability to lead the unit to execute the order.

I do think something like this could work really well and be augmented with simple army-wide rules to represent the particularities of different armies. For example, a couple spit balls:

Synapse - a unit in Synapse rolls 1d6 when making a leadership check to perform a stratagem.

Mob Rule - As long as there are more orks in the unit than the highest leadership value of any model in the unit, this unit automatically passes leadership tests when executing stratagems. If there are less orks than the highest value, roll 3d6.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm just throwing everything at the wall at the moment - I have a spreadsheet of random 40k ideas I've been adding to every day after my walk covering everything that is at around 350 lines by now - so not everything has coalesced yet, but I think that the core problem of all GW's rules - great idea/terrible execution - is something that can be fixed easily enough.


I'd be very interested in seeing something like this.

This message was edited 8 times. Last update was at 2021/10/22 13:55:36


Thought for the day
 
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




Southampton, UK

 Las wrote:

I'd be very interested in seeing something like this.


   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

Crispy78 wrote:
 Las wrote:

I'd be very interested in seeing something like this.




Whats the deal?

Thought for the day
 
   
Made in gb
Frenzied Berserker Terminator




Southampton, UK

Lame joke that probably loses its limited humour on explanation.

That's what it looks like after HBMC has thrown everything at the wall, sort of thing...
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Las wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
 Las wrote:

I'd be very interested in seeing something like this.




Whats the deal?


If only there was some words in the gif you could stick into google to get an explanation.


 
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




Honestly this abstracted line of sight idea would make the game much more fluid and we already have most of the existing framework for it. The only downside is that tlos offers better immersion but I do think that article I read on why tlos sucks had the right idea; we really need to move away from the idea that an individual model represents an individual piece on the battlefield and start thinking of them more as tokens, and we should think of terrain more as tokens or representation of the battlefield. The cylinder idea might be one of the fundamental keys to making the game more fluid and terrain more effective.

Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in ca
Hauptmann




Hogtown

 Sim-Life wrote:
 Las wrote:
Crispy78 wrote:
 Las wrote:

I'd be very interested in seeing something like this.




Whats the deal?


If only there was some words in the gif you could stick into google to get an explanation.


Why are you being sarcastic?

I understand the meme and have seen the always sunny episode. I didn't get what he was referring to exactly. Whats your deal?

Thought for the day
 
   
Made in us
Warp-Screaming Noise Marine




I think he meant the board of ideas is what he was referencing. What HBMC said that you quoted.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Las wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:


 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I'm just throwing everything at the wall at the moment - I have a spreadsheet of random 40k ideas I've been adding to every day after my walk covering everything that is at around 350 lines by now - so not everything has coalesced yet, but I think that the core problem of all GW's rules - great idea/terrible execution - is something that can be fixed easily enough.


I'd be very interested in seeing something like this.


This

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/22 16:43:26


Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before. -Kurt Vonnegut 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







 Jidmah wrote:
Terrain is already a super abstract, I believe that there is no need to introduce additional layers of complexity to add a false impression realism to it. It does have to be intuitive, but not realistic.

About infantry, both custodes/centurions and gretchin/rattlings are within an inch in size of your average marine or ork.
I really see no reason to differentiate between models at that level unless you want to have height stats accurate to a tenth of an inch for every model. Which essentially is just a more complicated way of doing TLOS.

For vehicles and monsters, I guess you could introduce an additional divider for smaller and larger models, but I also don't think such a differentiation would really add a lot to the game - there will always be an outlier or two where a cool looking model collides with an abstract rule.

In the end, you have to ask whether it's important to the game that a carnifex receives a different benefit from a 5" tall ruin than a doomstalker, and whether that difference is worth making the game more complex for it. Also keep in mind the implications this has for upgrades like adding wings to a hive tyrant.


The model of a grot or Ratling might be within an inch of a guardsman, and so might a Custodes/Centurion/etc, but within the setting we're talking 3-4 feet of height, let alone the associated bulk - a grot or Ratling is probably between one quarter and one eighth the bulk of a Space Marine, let alone a Custodes or Centurion.

It probably comes down to needing a BULKY keyword (and whatever the opposite would be - SCRAWNY, perhaps?) that means you treat them as one size category larger or smaller for targeting, or something like that. As noted, larger models are already restricted on transport usage, so why not keep the verisimilitude when it comes to how much easier (or harder) it would be to see things within the same "type" bracket.

If you keep the keywords away from being infantry-specific, you can use them for monsters, vehicles, etc, as well, as appropriate.

How important this sort of thing would be will vary by person of course, and whether it is a significant breakpoint in your verisimilitude is up to you. Not doing this would, for me, be as silly as saying that you have a fixed to-hit value in melee, regardless of how competent your opponent is...

2021 Plog - Here we go again... - my fifth attempt at a Dakka PLOG

My [url=https://pileofpotential.com/dysartes]Pile of Potential[/url - updates ongoing...

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.


 Kanluwen wrote:
This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.

Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army... 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Annandale, VA

 Las wrote:
As you describe these actions, they more resemble the immediate orders of squad leaders that are situationally reacting to the enemy in order to achieve their objectives. To me, these are better represented in the individual phases of the game that relate to the action that is being forgone, which also makes them easier to remember than declaring them all in one phase.

Conversely, I believe that the command phase could better represent the difficulties of battlefield command and control with a few small changes (guard players will recognize this):


I've generally felt that if you want to preserve the command point mechanic as a 'booster' resource rather than trying to model C&C, it would be straightforward to draw a line between actions that impose trade-offs and abilities that provide buffs.

So maybe going to ground- improving save at the cost of limiting movement/shooting next turn- is an ability that any unit can do, but an ability that just improves your cover save with no detriment should cost CP and require an officer nearby.

In general I agree that things that squads or units 'just do' shouldn't be tied to command points. My squads shouldn't lose the ability to take cover or pop smoke because the commander is focusing on the wombo-combo on the other side of the battlefield.

macluvin wrote:Honestly this abstracted line of sight idea would make the game much more fluid and we already have most of the existing framework for it. The only downside is that tlos offers better immersion but I do think that article I read on why tlos sucks had the right idea; we really need to move away from the idea that an individual model represents an individual piece on the battlefield and start thinking of them more as tokens, and we should think of terrain more as tokens or representation of the battlefield. The cylinder idea might be one of the fundamental keys to making the game more fluid and terrain more effective.


I'm glad to see more people becoming aware of the unintuitive scale implications of TLOS. Unfortunately, just thinking of models as tokens doesn't necessarily solve it- the 'footprint' of models and terrain still impose odd characteristics. For example, if we hold that the ground scale is 1mm = 1ft (making a human at game scale 'actually' 6mm tall) and we are simply using 28mm models for convenience, then either we need to be using 6mm terrain to match the ground scale, or a cozy little 28mm cottage model will have a board footprint that implies that it is actually a sprawling mansion. There inevitably comes a point where having parts of the game not-to-scale breaks down, and you just kinda have to roll with what feels right and doesn't cause too much heartburn.

My issue with TLOS is more that it ties a very fundamental characteristic of targeting to the static pose of the minis. In a lot of games that use TLOS, you're allowed to sub in a comparable model posed differently to check in those edge cases where poses are relevant. In 40K, your prone sniper by RAW can't stand up to shoot over sandbags, and the sergeant with a sword held in the air to rally the troops is incapable of bringing it down to stay out of sight, helplessly hoisting it over his cover as the bullets ricochet off of it to kill the entire squad huddled with him. That's the kind of crap that makes me strongly dislike 40K's TLOS implementation.

   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





OKC, OK USA

 Dysartes wrote:
 Jidmah wrote:
Terrain is already a super abstract, I believe that there is no need to introduce additional layers of complexity to add a false impression realism to it. It does have to be intuitive, but not realistic.

About infantry, both custodes/centurions and gretchin/rattlings are within an inch in size of your average marine or ork.
I really see no reason to differentiate between models at that level unless you want to have height stats accurate to a tenth of an inch for every model. Which essentially is just a more complicated way of doing TLOS.

For vehicles and monsters, I guess you could introduce an additional divider for smaller and larger models, but I also don't think such a differentiation would really add a lot to the game - there will always be an outlier or two where a cool looking model collides with an abstract rule.

In the end, you have to ask whether it's important to the game that a carnifex receives a different benefit from a 5" tall ruin than a doomstalker, and whether that difference is worth making the game more complex for it. Also keep in mind the implications this has for upgrades like adding wings to a hive tyrant.


The model of a grot or Ratling might be within an inch of a guardsman, and so might a Custodes/Centurion/etc, but within the setting we're talking 3-4 feet of height, let alone the associated bulk - a grot or Ratling is probably between one quarter and one eighth the bulk of a Space Marine, let alone a Custodes or Centurion.

It probably comes down to needing a BULKY keyword (and whatever the opposite would be - SCRAWNY, perhaps?) that means you treat them as one size category larger or smaller for targeting, or something like that. As noted, larger models are already restricted on transport usage, so why not keep the verisimilitude when it comes to how much easier (or harder) it would be to see things within the same "type" bracket.

If you keep the keywords away from being infantry-specific, you can use them for monsters, vehicles, etc, as well, as appropriate.

How important this sort of thing would be will vary by person of course, and whether it is a significant breakpoint in your verisimilitude is up to you. Not doing this would, for me, be as silly as saying that you have a fixed to-hit value in melee, regardless of how competent your opponent is...


Just copy the Size categories and silhouettes from Infinity. Have a LOS question? Place the silhouette relegated to that size and check.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in es
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

More abstraction e.g. cylinders is not a solution for me.I would prefer a base size plus a standard unit status like gone to ground or pinned or taking cover or hiding etc…

   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

 catbarf wrote:
My issue with TLOS is more that it ties a very fundamental characteristic of targeting to the static pose of the minis. In a lot of games that use TLOS, you're allowed to sub in a comparable model posed differently to check in those edge cases where poses are relevant. In 40K, your prone sniper by RAW can't stand up to shoot over sandbags, and the sergeant with a sword held in the air to rally the troops is incapable of bringing it down to stay out of sight, helplessly hoisting it over his cover as the bullets ricochet off of it to kill the entire squad huddled with him. That's the kind of crap that makes me strongly dislike 40K's TLOS implementation.
The weird part is that it didn't used to be this way. GW explicitly stated that things like antennae, banner poles, gun barrels and other "dramatic posing" was't enough to constitute a valid target.

Why they switched that - I guess to make the game 'easier'? - is just baffling as it's not improved anything.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
 catbarf wrote:
My issue with TLOS is more that it ties a very fundamental characteristic of targeting to the static pose of the minis. In a lot of games that use TLOS, you're allowed to sub in a comparable model posed differently to check in those edge cases where poses are relevant. In 40K, your prone sniper by RAW can't stand up to shoot over sandbags, and the sergeant with a sword held in the air to rally the troops is incapable of bringing it down to stay out of sight, helplessly hoisting it over his cover as the bullets ricochet off of it to kill the entire squad huddled with him. That's the kind of crap that makes me strongly dislike 40K's TLOS implementation.
The weird part is that it didn't used to be this way. GW explicitly stated that things like antennae, banner poles, gun barrels and other "dramatic posing" was't enough to constitute a valid target.

Why they switched that - I guess to make the game 'easier'? - is just baffling as it's not improved anything.
It is wierd, yeah. They also used to have language about how models didn't 'act' as they were posed. It was also explicitly assumed that they were hugging cover and staying low when necessary.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

They went from abstraction to a bizarre form of total literalism, strange for a game where everyone is jumping off rocks.

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut





Honestly that's not where the problem lies right now.

LoS and obscuring are fine, leave them like that. The game just isn't fun when no one can see anyone and anything being seen gets toasted.

What needs work (and actually not much) is the cover system.
I'm ok with a unit fully in the open being an easy target. That's fine and normal. In any game featuring a modern or modern-like warfare, anything that is left out in the open is toasted.
What is not fine, is that cover isn't properly protecting your units.
IMHO, cover (all types) should provide a +1 save bonus. Then the type of cover provides an additional effect over that. Dense cover is a -1 to hit, light cover lets you ignore AP 1 and 2 from shooting, heavy cover is a cramped space, so non-vehicle//monsters get half the attacks (both attacker and defender).

Do this, and the game becomes instantly less lethal. You also provide a limitation for AP 1 and AP2 which are the most impacting AP steps right now.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/23 04:22:41


 
   
Made in us
Terminator with Assault Cannon




San Jose, CA

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
They went from abstraction to a bizarre form of total literalism, strange for a game where everyone is jumping off rocks.

They're jumping off of those rock so they CAN get LOS on a target....it's just they are also a target.


But it's stupid nonetheless.
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: