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.
JohnHwangDD wrote:
First off, you presume that the other posters lives revolve around winning tournaments, when many of us prefer casual play. If you're playing for the experience, rather than the win and the prize, then you probably could care less if you didn't win a prize.
If it was a WC guy screwing a non-WC guy out of a prize that he actually earned, then yeah, I suppose there might be more outrage. Kind of like 'Ard Boyz? Yeah, like that. The difference is that the TO was able to publicly man up and take actual steps make things right. The WC has never shown the cojones to do that kind of thing.
Most importantly, I don't have the time for tournament prep and play anymore. But from when I *did* have this kind of time, I was good enough to win my fair share of things. The "Best General" award gathering dust somewhere in my gaming pile says that I shouldn't have any problem beating any of you on the tabletop if I set my mind to it. Of course, if we're ever did play, I'm going to demand that we both use a common set of ruler and dice (and dice tower), along with mutual agreement on results before anything is touched...
But really, the thing starts to become a question of whether Generalship or Army List selection is more important. If we did this, to make it interesting, I think we'd have Dakka create two "balanced" army lists, and then flip a coin to see who played what. After all, if you bring a WAAC list against balanced lists, and win, where's the Generalship in that?
For people that don't care about the tournament circuit - there sure seems to be a lot of discussion about it. If people didn't care - I wouldn't think they would take the time to comment about it.
The 'ard boyz controversy is a dead horse - beaten to death - finalized, ruled on, and given the GW seal of approval. Only the haters seem to keep bringing it up. I also think Deadshane DID publicly respond on DAKKA about it. How many of the haters have ANY first hand experience vs WC members? And if so....what was the result? So far - with one exception that I know of - pretty much everyone who's played against WC members seem positive about playing them? (Centurion99, blackmoor, etc...)
Good players should settle things on the battlefield. As to beating people on the battlefield - until you've done it - it's just talk and theory. Actions - not words. The WC guys seem to do a pretty good job at winning games based on the 2008 tourney circuit results. That is a undeniable fact. I think in a game if there are concerns about cheating dice, etc - that each person should use the others dice/rulers then.
I've always thought it would make for a great tournament if everyone had to play the exact same list. Wouldn't work for all tourney's - but would at least put the armies on a par.
'Lo, there do I see my father. 'Lo, there do I see...My mother, and my sisters, and my brothers. 'Lo, there do I see...The line of my people...Back to the beginning. 'Lo, they do call to me. They bid me take my place among them. Iin the halls of Valhalla... Where the brave... May live... ...forever.
JD21290 wrote:
now, this may by why you get all the hate comments, fair enough, a member got caught cheating, doesent make the whole WC a bunch of cheaters, just that 1 person.
but, when you try to hype your self up and "look down your nose at people" then yes, people will have a problem with that.
im sure there are alot of better players out there, just because someone wont enter or cant enter a tournament does not mean they are not good.
so, its pretty simple, if you were to ease up on that ego people would be fine, its nice to have tourney winners about on dakka for advice, but its nowhere near nice when such people use dakka as a way to stroke thier ever growing ego.
Other than rebuttals of comments directed at them - when have WC members posted negative comments about others? I'm not aware of any - but I could be wrong. The only example might be the guy who got banned from dakka - but that is a story unto itself.
I'm sure that there are many competent and capable players - all across the world. But from the view of the tournament circuit - which - like it or not is the measuring stick of player quality - WC did well in 2008. As it stands now - it's primarily around game play - with some aspects of modeling/painting and sportsmanship included. There are other areas of the hobby that I don't think WC has done so well at - i.e. Golden Demons, Best Painted, Best Army's, etc.
The GW sponsored events were all won by WC members. As a club and as a gaming community - that is (or should be) considered a pretty impressive accomplishment. Did WC get a little over zealous in complimenting themselves about it - maybe - but I don't think any of that was at the expense of others? Did anyone ever say "WC won and all those other clubs are just a bunch of baby seals that we clubbed"? I don't think so....
'Lo, there do I see my father. 'Lo, there do I see...My mother, and my sisters, and my brothers. 'Lo, there do I see...The line of my people...Back to the beginning. 'Lo, they do call to me. They bid me take my place among them. Iin the halls of Valhalla... Where the brave... May live... ...forever.
it has been known for more than a few members to say these kinds of comments.
yes, but not every gamer in the world will enter a tourney.
we have no way of knowing about the ability of other players abound the globe.
so at tourneys, yes, they WC do tear them up, but in no way does it make them the best there is.
as the saying goes: "no matter how good you are at something, there is allways someone who is better"
at what point did i say it wasnt?
i would say its very impressive indeed.
just a maybe? i would beg to differ.
but since i cannot provide any posts to back that one up, i will leave that where it is.
Suffused with the dying memories of Sanguinus, the warriors of the Death Company seek only one thing: death in battle fighting against the enemies of the Emperor.
I can undertand the comp vs. no comp sides. On one hand why is anything in the rules considered anti-comp? It's in the rules, you should be able to play it. GW own English tournaments have no comp. GW employee events have no comp. You can't get more close to the source than that.
The comp field has a point, but I haven't heard it said. The no commp faction eventually cries that the rules only allow a few army archtypes to succeed at the top level. Ironically it is the no comp camps that both want no comp to maximize lists and complain that the weak rules restrict the type of armies they can bring to a tournament. If they wouldn't bring so many extreme lists, there would be more variety of potential winning lists. It's a catch-22.
No one can trust everyone else to not bring just 1 more broken unit then normal to give them an advantage so everyone brings the strongest lists and we end up with just a few lists that are viable to win all your games.
Comp rules are designed to try and expand the viable army lists that can run through a tournament, however a universal comp system hasn't been made that can accomplish this because there are always exceptions to any universal comp system. 40% troops favors strong troop armies, etc... The comp systems just seem to switch the small faction of viable armies from one area to another, not increase their numbers which is what comp is supposed to do.
Interestingly enough the best way I have seen to increase the viable army types is to increase the points level of games. A 3000pt game might take longer, but it gives more army types a chance to beat any other list. The Ard Boyz have begun to show signs of this in its 2 short years of excistence.
Aldonis wrote:Some people might think the funniest army to play against is the hardest to beat.
Some might think it is one that seems to really match the fluff of the army as written in novels or codexes.
Others might think it's the ones that they can beat.
I like both of the top 2 and think the third is for wimps.
The key is for the tournament to clearly spell it out ahead of time for people. If a Nobz biker list is "illegal" for a tournament - let people know that before they bring it. That is only common courtesy.
Everything I know and have had interaction with in regards to Kenny is that he's a stand up guy. I say that despite the fact that he beat me out for best sportsmanship in the Atlanta GT a few years back making me settle for second best sportsman. If there was more to it - then the TO should let his thoughts be known here. Or if he made a mistake (due to personal prejudice or whatever) and manned up about it - then it should be put to bed.
I would encourage posters to put themselves in the shoes of having something like this happen to them and see how they would react. Or how they would have responded if it wasn't a member of the WC who was impacted.
In fact - the WC bashing seems pretty ignorant to me personally. Wah! A bunch of cheaters....wah! Wah! Get me a passy! SHEESH! If you don't like WC winning all the tournaments - cowboy up and get good enough to beat them on the table - and don't hide behind some lame excuse about how they are all cheaters! That sorry tailed excuse has gotten as much mileage out of it as it can get. Lame excuse, used by lame players, who's ego can't handle getting beaten.....
my two cents....
And yet STILL...
We get more of the same from the WC back up singers. IF the list in question wasn't WAAC, and based specificly to be a PITA, you might have room to speak.
But from the track record, it seems that WAAC in these tourneys is more important then playing. So basicly, you have nothing to add other then more of the same, "Oh these guys are just misunderstood.." When it has already been clearly posted by these members of the club that they play to win, and will win at all costs, regardless of how they do it.
AND for the record, I've never heard of your WC bashing that you speak. We, as in other posters on this forum are getting tired of the chest thumping, the rather obtuse postings of the so called "Champions" crying like schoolgirls because, "They got a raw deal..." Regardless of the TO.
That is pretty much a dead horse. NOW we get to hear more of the same, "Hey if you cant beat us... leave" crap that was funny in highschool, but now going on a few years later, is pretty lame.
No one in this thread said anything about cheating. That came out of your hole, after the rest of us are already having a pretty good conversation about the intricacy of tourny scoring. I am the one that says if you bring a WAAC, blaitently overloaded list to a tourney, and you catch static, then you brought that on yourself. ESPECIALLY since you can easily contact the tourney organizer and get the seriously importaint information, like what lists are viable, or what is and isn't allowed.
Seriously dude, if you have something to contribute, stay. If not, we are all already well into 6+ pages into this conversation before we start bringing out the pitchforks and torches. The discussion is about the comp issue, now. Your rallying to the defense of your poor crucified pals isn't needed, nor wanted.
At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money.
No need to be coy Roy. You don't have to get off the bus Gus. Anyways I see why you are enraged now... nothing but conjecture. You bring a whole new meaning to the term fist bump.... Oooooooooooh!
G
Bunker wrote:
Green Blow Fly wrote:Link please.
G
Bunker wrote:
Aldonis wrote:
Other than rebuttals of comments directed at them - when have WC members posted negative comments about others?
You're either not paying much attention or have never been to their private forums. Especially the hidden boards.
Yeah, not posting a link to your malware infested forums. You and I both know what boards I'm talking about.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/18 00:31:00
ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!
Trust me, no matter what damage they have the potential to do, single-shot weapons always flatter to deceive in 40k.                                                                                                       Rule #1 - BBAP
How much of a score is Comp relevent to? Half of your points? 25% of your points? IS it enough to squeek a win, or to overpower someone completely?
Who has played a tourney that had an incident where comp was the deciding factor?
When did the Comp become such an issue in the American tournies if they don't use it in England?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/18 00:45:13
At Games Workshop, we believe that how you behave does matter. We believe this so strongly that we have written it down in the Games Workshop Book. There is a section in the book where we talk about the values we expect all staff to demonstrate in their working lives. These values are Lawyers, Guns and Money.
Green Blow Fly wrote:
No need to be coy Roy. You don't have to get off the bus Gus. Anyways I see why you are enraged now... nothing but conjecture. You bring a whole new meaning to the term fist bump.... Oooooooooooh!
G
Bunker wrote:
Green Blow Fly wrote:Link please.
G
Bunker wrote:
Aldonis wrote:
Other than rebuttals of comments directed at them - when have WC members posted negative comments about others?
You're either not paying much attention or have never been to their private forums. Especially the hidden boards.
Yeah, not posting a link to your malware infested forums. You and I both know what boards I'm talking about.
For a self-proclaimed troll, you really have no idea what you're doing.
frazz mate, if your lurking here is a new pic for you to use puppy one is good, but this is better:
Suffused with the dying memories of Sanguinus, the warriors of the Death Company seek only one thing: death in battle fighting against the enemies of the Emperor.
Grot 6 wrote:How much of a score is Comp relevent to? Half of your points? 25% of your points? IS it enough to squeek a win, or to overpower someone completely?
Who has played a tourney that had an incident where comp was the deciding factor?
When did the Comp become such an issue in the American tournies if they don't use it in England?
Comp was "officially" introduced in the old RTT scoring they came out with. 40% troops, etc.
This particular tournament was very high on comp and theme about 10 points per round. 30 points overall for the tournament. So it was a fair chunck of points. I would say it was around 1/3 to 25 %, don't know exactly.
Oh for feth's sake can someone just send up flare if/when the TFGTO wades in? It's really the only thing this controversy is missing, and I am getting really bored wading thru all this WC nerdrage. I don't know them, never played them, don't think I eeven have any in my state. Don't have anything against the WC, or even the anti-WC; it's a forum and people are free to post whatever within the rules. I'm not disputing that. I'm just sick of having to scaaaaaaaan thru all the rage.
GBF, all of us spend a stupid ammount on small plastic and metal men, i think to some extent we are all somewhat crazy as it is.
Suffused with the dying memories of Sanguinus, the warriors of the Death Company seek only one thing: death in battle fighting against the enemies of the Emperor.
Grot 6 wrote:How much of a score is Comp relevent to? Half of your points? 25% of your points? IS it enough to squeek a win, or to overpower someone completely?
Who has played a tourney that had an incident where comp was the deciding factor?
When did the Comp become such an issue in the American tournies if they don't use it in England?
Could be significant. It depends on the idiosyncrasies of the tournament. At a local (well, tri-states) tournament I saw a player who was 3-1-1 take first place over three 4-1 players solely because of comp.
PROSECUTOR: By now, there have been 34 casualties.
Elena Ceausescu says: Look, and that they are calling genocide.
We get more of the same from the WC back up singers. IF the list in question wasn't WAAC, and based specificly to be a PITA, you might have room to speak.
But from the track record, it seems that WAAC in these tourneys is more important then playing. So basicly, you have nothing to add other then more of the same, "Oh these guys are just misunderstood.." When it has already been clearly posted by these members of the club that they play to win, and will win at all costs, regardless of how they do it.
AND for the record, I've never heard of your WC bashing that you speak. We, as in other posters on this forum are getting tired of the chest thumping, the rather obtuse postings of the so called "Champions" crying like schoolgirls because, "They got a raw deal..." Regardless of the TO.
That is pretty much a dead horse. NOW we get to hear more of the same, "Hey if you cant beat us... leave" crap that was funny in highschool, but now going on a few years later, is pretty lame.
No one in this thread said anything about cheating. That came out of your hole, after the rest of us are already having a pretty good conversation about the intricacy of tourny scoring. I am the one that says if you bring a WAAC, blaitently overloaded list to a tourney, and you catch static, then you brought that on yourself. ESPECIALLY since you can easily contact the tourney organizer and get the seriously importaint information, like what lists are viable, or what is and isn't allowed.
Seriously dude, if you have something to contribute, stay. If not, we are all already well into 6+ pages into this conversation before we start bringing out the pitchforks and torches. The discussion is about the comp issue, now. Your rallying to the defense of your poor crucified pals isn't needed, nor wanted.
I guess I'm a lead "PIP"....
Think I was responding DIRECTLY to comments on THIS thread....
Where is their complaining about not winning - it was concerns about a tournament that if anyone but a WC member had posted about, would be considered a blatant case of TO EPIC FAIL. But - because it was a WC member, then it was ok because they DESERVED it and got what was coming??? The TO had the rules posted before that said nothing about the army being illegal or subject to penalty. Where is the fairness there? Static - that's subjective, but discrimination against without prior warning - that isn't right. Sounded like most of his opponents had no issue with the lists - only the TO. Read the entire posts....
As I said before - if you don't like the "chest thumping" that you think the WC guys are doing - then beat them on the table top. It's simple and effective - maybe not easy though.
And I think I post here what I wish...until the thread gets locked. Sorry - if you don't like it - just ignore it....or whine about - whichever you like most.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/02/18 02:01:13
'Lo, there do I see my father. 'Lo, there do I see...My mother, and my sisters, and my brothers. 'Lo, there do I see...The line of my people...Back to the beginning. 'Lo, they do call to me. They bid me take my place among them. Iin the halls of Valhalla... Where the brave... May live... ...forever.
Grot 6 wrote:How much of a score is Comp relevent to? Half of your points? 25% of your points? IS it enough to squeek a win, or to overpower someone completely?
Who has played a tourney that had an incident where comp was the deciding factor?
When did the Comp become such an issue in the American tournies if they don't use it in England?
Comp was "officially" introduced in the old RTT scoring they came out with. 40% troops, etc.
This particular tournament was very high on comp and theme about 10 points per round. 30 points overall for the tournament. So it was a fair chunck of points. I would say it was around 1/3 to 25 %, don't know exactly.
In the late 90's when I first went to a GT - COMP (as well as painting and sportsmanship) could EASILY take you from top 25 to middle of the road or lower - as I found out the first time I attended one. I think about 50% of your overall total was there.
It was still a part of the GT's up until 2004 or 2005 - the complaint was the subjectivity of it. I personally kinda liked it and had no problems making armies that fit well into it, but I think it got a lot of complaints.
I have always thought that they needed two tourneys - one a 'ard boyz style of no comp/paining, and a second group that had those things included.
But for both - as much subjectivity as possible needs to be removed. Easier actually for comp than painting. GW has tried to improve by painting guidelines etc - but nothing universally accepted has been put out.
My 2 cents - post the rules as they are for the tourney, stick to them - and people can decide to play or not as they like.
'Lo, there do I see my father. 'Lo, there do I see...My mother, and my sisters, and my brothers. 'Lo, there do I see...The line of my people...Back to the beginning. 'Lo, they do call to me. They bid me take my place among them. Iin the halls of Valhalla... Where the brave... May live... ...forever.
Go back and read the posts. The TO pull some rules out of his pocket that were not posted to the public beforehand. That's just not cool however you slice it fella. I guess he just really hates on the nob bikers. The funny thing is another WC member won best overall at Genghis Con so obviously the hate was not directed specifically at WC but rather it was directed at a particular army list. Oh well please try again.
G
ALL HAIL SANGUINIUS! No one can beat my Wu Tang style!
I couldn't give a crap about WC either way. Having never played them or indeed, in tournaments of any nature.
Having said that it seems apparent that the TO was up to some shenanigans. Since he isn't here to post his side of the story and everything else seems hashed out in that regards, could we just drop the general Genghis Con information/collusion/accusations etc. and continue the interesting topic of how the soft scores work in different tourney/judging environment?
So I have heard from a friend in the comunity that I have started a firestorm on the forums. After reading through the threads I thought I would reply.
I screwed Kenny..... I did....... It was unfair and unkind...... Once I realized my mistake I spoke to Kenny privately and apologized and I publicly apologized.
I have no problems with Kenny but I do consider the nob biker list unfair and unbalanced.
For the record:
1. Kenny did not even come close to winning players choice. Jason's ork army recieved the most votes. It was the "bull's eye" orks and was a truly amazing force, well painted with nice conversions. After realizing my mistake I would have loved to have given Kenny an award for the day. I truly felt crappy about ruining his day and if he would have won I would have gladly given him the award. Instead I made up an award and gave him a prize as an apology for my mistake.
2. The scores in question where bonus scores. I had intended them to be given to people that exceeded the standard in theme and composition. The text for the scores was as follows:
--The player’s army was clearly built around fluff or storyline with no or very little regard to tournament competitiveness. It is wonderfully painted and modeled.
--The player’s army is a clear representation of a balanced army without emphasizing the hard hitting units of their army.
If anyone actually believes that a nob biker army deserves bonus points for these two, well, we will just have to agree to disagree. Kenny spoke to me and indicated that his "crew" invented this list specificaly to beat down the tournamenet scene so by his own admission he did not deserve any of these points. That said, after the second round of the tournament was finished I was reviewing the scores and I found that everyone was giving max theme and composition scores regardless of their opponents forces. Unpainted armies, double lash, nearly all of them with almost no exceptions. I realized that instead of enforcing bonus criteria by requireing his opponents to convince me of its fluffiness I was just punishing Kenny. At that point I went over to Kenny in his third game, I indicated that I wanted to talk to him after the game and that I was going to reverse my decision to not allow the original votes by his opposing players.
3. None of Kenny's opponents gave him the composition bonus points. All of them ended up giving him the theme bonus points. I spoke with all of his opponents and none of them gave me a valid reason for giving him the theme points other than it is a beautifully painted and converted army (which it is). I asked each of them if they thought the list was built clearly around fluff or storyline and all of them indicated that no they thought the list was built to win. This is why I originally witheld the points. Not becuase I had a Jones to screw Kenny but becuase his opponents were just giving him the bonus points to give him the bonus points. I thought I was enforcing the published rules of the tournament by requiring that a player truly think his opponent deserved the bonus points. None of his opponents did, they were just giving him the points. I did not ask this of every player becuase of the people that had a chance to win the tournament only Kenny's list was truly abusive in my oppinion. I do not like Rich's, Ron's, or Tulio's deamon armies but niether Ron nor Tulio did the double wound trick on their blood crushers that Kenny did and Rich ran an all tzeetch list. Damien's army was balanced, and Brook's army was drop podding marines. The kid with the 3 monolyth army had no shot at winning and no one was running double lash 9 oblits. Tony's army was sisters force but it wasn't too abusive either.
4. Kenny's match ups all followed the rules that everyone else played by. I had indicated to all of the national quality players that I would be doing preferred pairing for these individuals. I actually didn't realize that Kenny was playing until he was already in the midst of destroying his first opponent. I toyed around the idea of looking for a volunteer for him in the second round since that list is just too brutal but in the end I went with just pairing him up against the other national quality player with the same battle points. He was able to achieve a minor victory against that opponent. A bit surprised that he didn't table this oppponent (which I later learned he thought he would have if given another turn) I set up matches for the final round. While the minor victory had taken him out of the top tier he was still within striking distance of first place. I matched all of the national quality players that had a shot at the win against each other for the final round. Rich was paired up against Kenny for that reason. Kenny was actually slightly ahead of Rich in the standings at that point but not by much.
5. I did NOT specifically allocate them to a board with a level two building. I did remark when I was looking at the game that they ended up on one of the 5-7 boards we had with a building but that was it. Perhaps Kenny or Darkness heard this incorrectly or perhaps they were jsut upset.
6. No other players protested his scores. The only people aware of Kenny's situation were Kenny and his opponents. I made a decision to give the points back while Kenny still had a shot at overall and I let him know that.
7. Darkness I do not know who you are but you obviously know me. Before you slander my name anonomously on the internet perhaps you should speak to me first. Or at least get your facts straight. I screwed Kenny, in the end I realized that and it was no court of public oppinion that got his scores released but a decision by me. He did not win nor did he come close to winning players choice. If you want to dispute it you should have caught me that night since I was there until 1 am pulling the terain down and getting ready for Fantasy the next day. I would have gladly have shown you or anyone else the actual voting sheets.
In the end I truly felt bad about ruining Kenny's day. I privately apologized to him and I publicly apoligized to him. If he and his friends want to consider it insincere there is nothing I can do about it. I have been screwed at tournaments before and by my lack of attendance at Adepticon shows what I think is the proper course of action. If Kenny does not come to one of the tournaments again I would not blame him. If he does, he will of course be welcome.
With all of this I would like to say that I have been organizing and running the two big tournaments for nearly 10 years now. While I can often get someone else to run the event for me in the end it is my responsibility to get it run. I am human and I make mistakes, this was one of them. I still think his list is unbalanced and crappy but I let my judgement interfere with the tournament. I would be more than willing to let someone else take this torch for a while in Denver. The only reason I run and organize this event is becuase no one else will. For all of the people that flamed me in the other thread I am taking volunteers to run the next event. If anyone wants to volunteer they can email me at BrPrometheus@comcast.net. I can get you a free entrance into the con, and I can set you up with a game on another day. I will provide you all of the terrain and I will even help you set it up and break it down. That said I doubt any of you will. Most of you like to sit on the sidelines and complain and not do anything about it. I fully expect to be running this tournament 10 years from now becuase no one else will. I don't really enjoy it, its largely a pain in the ass and if you think my wife likes me missing every Valentines Day you are kidding yourself. So please someone who really thinks I screwed up and should be disbarred from every running the tournamenet again step forward. I will gladly turn over the reigns to you. And when you dock me all of my sportsmanship scores, lower all of my composition scores, remove my theme points, and automatically have me loose every game I will still be in a better place than I am as I will be playing and not running.
BrP: Thanks a lot for clearing this up. There's been a lot of crap flyin about as you can see. And I will echo JHDD in saying good job on taking your lumps at the tourney.
Aye, very nice to see and not really that surprising.
On the topic of softscores and the problem they obviously encountered here it has been said in many threads before. WC have been known to bump up their own scores, always giving top scores to each other (wich isnt much to do about, alot of people do that if they know each other etc.) BUT they have also been known to manhandle people into giving them top points with the"if you dont give me/us good scores we will mark you down and we know who looses most on that". And when a TO sees that happenes he has to step in, if he got any backbone that is. (Like I said, this isnt exclusive for WC but there have been posts about them doing it before)
Other then that I can only say this is the mayor reason softscores are junk at wherever you play, they add so many ways you can abuse the system.
Suffused with the dying memories of Sanguinus, the warriors of the Death Company seek only one thing: death in battle fighting against the enemies of the Emperor. 
-- 9k 
-- 6k 
-- 4k 
-- 
