Switch Theme:

Does this Enhance Your Game Experience?  [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 gb
Fixture of Dakka







Rihgu wrote:
I really don't see how a data sheet having the short hand term for a rule that let's them advance and fire without penalty and a data sheet having the full text "can advance and fire without penalty" changes anything.

USRs wouldn't add any depth to the core rules...

Not this bad take again. Let's go...

A, USRs would be defined at the start of an edition, so that certain rules have a standard set of wording and implementation. This wording could allow for wildcards for values, if you want some options for variation (like a Feel No Pain X+, where X is the value you have to roll to make the FNP save).
B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs, for example. I'd suggest 1-2 pages of them, unless you need to use diagrams to explain something in more detail. Assuming they can achieve that, you then reprint the full USR page(s) in each Codex as an appendix.
C, Assuming GW stick with the datasheet format the next time they reboot the game, if space on the datasheet permits then you print the full rules text of the USR there. No-one that I've seen advocating for USRs has ever said that can't happen. The point here is to reduce the number of rules which are very similar but not quite the same to be standardised instead, as well as allowing players to refer to the USR name as a shorthand when discussing units/factions.

Personally, I'd like to see this come into effect alongside a better use of keywords for weapons - having BOLT as a keyword, for example, would allow the Bolter Discipline to be written in a much more elegant fashion, as well as future-proofing it.

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 dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 catbarf wrote:
vict0988 wrote:Relics don't need to be perfectly balanced.


Maybe, in the grand scheme of things, that's not a horrendous issue for balance, but it does suck from an army-building perspective to have one or two good options and a bunch of crap that only the most casual of narrative players will use.

At least if they're tied to a points cost you have a reason to take the bad relic over the better alternatives.

If a relic is worth 11 points more than another relic then one of them needs a rule change IMO, if they're within 10 points of each other then you can pick the worse relic without feeling too bad about it because even if the power sword relic is superior to the power axe relic you're still getting a solid worthwhile buff when taking the power axe relic and it'll hopefully be better in some circumstances, like a souped up pistol would be better than a souped up armour if you're not getting attacked. Having relics where the main draw is "heck it's cheap might as well take it" I don't like, then they're not really relics anymore.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/09 06:17:20


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut





I don't think it adds anything to the experience. At first in 8th I thought the subtle buff from strats was alright but I called it that GW would ride that horse well past dead and most battles would become stratagem 2 electricboogaloo.

Now that we are in it ? No, I think the units complexity should be in their core rules not spread and sprinkled through out a million splat books filled with relics, strats, traits and free candy from the back of a creepy van.

Not only is it annoying, but way too heavy on those " Gotcha ! " moments that are so rife in other kinds of games. It isn't deep or immersive or nuanced, it's just a pain in the rear end. It's bloated, exhausting and annoying. This is just my opinion but really units are just about as bogged down with strats traits relics and auras as they were from their own rules back in 7th at this point.

GW got greedy, they dug too deep and released the Balrog of super bloat back onto us once more. They should have known better but all they could taste was that sweet nerd money.
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

 AngryAngel80 wrote:

GW got greedy, they dug too deep and released the Balrog of super bloat back onto us once more. They should have known better but all they could taste was that sweet nerd money.
I'm not sure this holds true. We would have gotten new codizes with a new edition anyway, regardless wether Stratagems would be a thing.

Online and offline the splat books don't seem to be very popular.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Dysartes wrote:
B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs
To be fair, having written a 'simplehammer' updated to a few old books you do get some quite long special rule columns as a result.

A simple (4e) beast of nurgle for example looks something like this:
▪ Daemon
▪ Mark of Nurgle
▪ Fearless
▪ Deepstrike
▪ Poison (4+)
▪ Feel No Pain (4+)
▪ Slow and Purposeful
▪ Invulnerable (5+)
▪ Eternal Warrior

It's quite a bit cleaner if Daemon(Nurgle) encompasses the mark, fearless, deepstrike, and eternal warrior rules.
   
Made in ca
Charing Cold One Knight





 vipoid wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Relics for me are one of those things that can be difficult to balance but at the same time are really fun in game and as conversion opportunities.
I do agree relics should be paid for but restrictions should absolutely still be in place with regards to how many an army can take and what can take them. I don't ever want to get near 6th/7th where a Chapter Master could take 3 relics and become unkillable.


Yeah, I definitely don't want to see Relics removed from the game.

However, I think we badly need to go back to paying for relics with points. As it stands currently, every relic costs the same number of points and there's an arbitrary limit on how many you can take in your army. So whereas before you could stick a cheap relic on a character for a bit of fun, flavour or whatever, now there's no such thing as a cheap relic because they all cost the same number of points. Moreover, because of the arbitrary limit, taking what used to be 5pt pistols or 10pt minor artefacts now prevent you from taking other, much stronger artefacts on other characters.

I think this goes back to GW wanting to remove points altogether at the start of 8th and then changing their minds at the last minute (hence why every unit had a power level on its dataslate, whilst point costs were hastily jammed together into a table at the very end of each book). Since power levels don't allow for artefacts, they had to use CPs instead.


Everything in this game has to have a point value in my opinion. This goes for relics, warlord traits, as well as psychic powers. Mostly because none of those things are created equal.
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 Eldarsif wrote:
 vipoid wrote:
 Gert wrote:
Relics for me are one of those things that can be difficult to balance but at the same time are really fun in game and as conversion opportunities.
I do agree relics should be paid for but restrictions should absolutely still be in place with regards to how many an army can take and what can take them. I don't ever want to get near 6th/7th where a Chapter Master could take 3 relics and become unkillable.


Yeah, I definitely don't want to see Relics removed from the game.

However, I think we badly need to go back to paying for relics with points. As it stands currently, every relic costs the same number of points and there's an arbitrary limit on how many you can take in your army. So whereas before you could stick a cheap relic on a character for a bit of fun, flavour or whatever, now there's no such thing as a cheap relic because they all cost the same number of points. Moreover, because of the arbitrary limit, taking what used to be 5pt pistols or 10pt minor artefacts now prevent you from taking other, much stronger artefacts on other characters.

I think this goes back to GW wanting to remove points altogether at the start of 8th and then changing their minds at the last minute (hence why every unit had a power level on its dataslate, whilst point costs were hastily jammed together into a table at the very end of each book). Since power levels don't allow for artefacts, they had to use CPs instead.


Everything in this game has to have a point value in my opinion. This goes for relics, warlord traits, as well as psychic powers. Mostly because none of those things are created equal.


I certainly wouldn't object to all those things each having costs.

The sad thing is, GW have even shown that they're capable of this. Even notwithstanding older editions, Necrons have Cryptek Arkana - which are effectively artefacts, except you pay for them with points rather than CP. Similarly, SoB have a selection of Master upgrades for characters that are also payed for with points.

I see no reason whatsoever why this system couldn't be extended to Warlord Traits, Artefacts and Psychic Powers.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






I think that Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers should go back to random generation, that way there's no building a list/strategy around a Warlord Trait or Psychic Power. Keeping a specific set of Traits/Powers should be left to Crusade where the focus is on narrative.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Wouldn't that just add a massive level of "feels bad man" to that aspect of the game? "So glad I rolled the 'better in HTH combat' Warlord trait for my shooting army!" "Oh good, like Librarian got the power that has no place in my army!". I don't think players want to roll on random tables to determine whether or not their units will play a role in the battle this game.

 vipoid wrote:
The sad thing is, GW have even shown that they're capable of this. Even notwithstanding older editions, Necrons have Cryptek Arkana - which are effectively artefacts, except you pay for them with points rather than CP. Similarly, SoB have a selection of Master upgrades for characters that are also payed for with points.
BTs are about to get relics they can give squad leaders. In fact, a lot of recent books have added points-based character upgrades. TS and GKs did it in their books.




This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/10/09 11:37:13


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

 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Gert wrote:
I think that Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers should go back to random generation, that way there's no building a list/strategy around a Warlord Trait or Psychic Power. Keeping a specific set of Traits/Powers should be left to Crusade where the focus is on narrative.


Psychic Powers yes, Warlord Traits should just be taken out entirely.


 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






@H.B.M.C
Meh, I played CSM and Daemons in 6th/7th so Random was the norm. I enjoyed the Warp Storm and Boon tables and rolling a shooting trait for my Khorne Lord was just funny. Different mindsets like different things though and I do see where you're coming from.

@Sim-Life
Nah, Warlord traits are fun, especially for Deathwatch.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/09 11:41:02


 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka







A.T. wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs
To be fair, having written a 'simplehammer' updated to a few old books you do get some quite long special rule columns as a result.

A simple (4e) beast of nurgle for example looks something like this:
▪ Daemon
▪ Mark of Nurgle
▪ Fearless
▪ Deepstrike
▪ Poison (4+)
▪ Feel No Pain (4+)
▪ Slow and Purposeful
▪ Invulnerable (5+)
▪ Eternal Warrior

It's quite a bit cleaner if Daemon(Nurgle) encompasses the mark, fearless, deepstrike, and eternal warrior rules.

I'll disagree with you on having Daemon (Nurgle) in place of those four rules being cleaner - if you have to look away from the datasheet to a second source to find that D(N) covers four other rules but does nothing on its own, then you're adding cerebral load for no real benefit. If the datasheet is looking cluttered, you put the USR rather than the full rule.

Poison I'd've thought would be moved to whatever row on the datasheet covers the melee attacks, though, rather than as a unit-level rule, going with the 8th/9th templating.

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 de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Dysartes wrote:
A.T. wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs
To be fair, having written a 'simplehammer' updated to a few old books you do get some quite long special rule columns as a result.

A simple (4e) beast of nurgle for example looks something like this:
▪ Daemon
▪ Mark of Nurgle
▪ Fearless
▪ Deepstrike
▪ Poison (4+)
▪ Feel No Pain (4+)
▪ Slow and Purposeful
▪ Invulnerable (5+)
▪ Eternal Warrior

It's quite a bit cleaner if Daemon(Nurgle) encompasses the mark, fearless, deepstrike, and eternal warrior rules.

I'll disagree with you on having Daemon (Nurgle) in place of those four rules being cleaner - if you have to look away from the datasheet to a second source to find that D(N) covers four other rules but does nothing on its own, then you're adding cerebral load for no real benefit. If the datasheet is looking cluttered, you put the USR rather than the full rule.

Poison I'd've thought would be moved to whatever row on the datasheet covers the melee attacks, though, rather than as a unit-level rule, going with the 8th/9th templating.


Agree. All these USR should be on the unit card. Isn't a BoN classified as monstrous infantry like ogres in 9th Age? Ah, and one more thing:
List those abilities in alphabetical order. Yes, it's nitpicky but also much cleaner.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/09 13:42:26


 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 Strg Alt wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
A.T. wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs
To be fair, having written a 'simplehammer' updated to a few old books you do get some quite long special rule columns as a result.

A simple (4e) beast of nurgle for example looks something like this:
▪ Daemon
▪ Mark of Nurgle
▪ Fearless
▪ Deepstrike
▪ Poison (4+)
▪ Feel No Pain (4+)
▪ Slow and Purposeful
▪ Invulnerable (5+)
▪ Eternal Warrior

It's quite a bit cleaner if Daemon(Nurgle) encompasses the mark, fearless, deepstrike, and eternal warrior rules.

I'll disagree with you on having Daemon (Nurgle) in place of those four rules being cleaner - if you have to look away from the datasheet to a second source to find that D(N) covers four other rules but does nothing on its own, then you're adding cerebral load for no real benefit. If the datasheet is looking cluttered, you put the USR rather than the full rule.

Poison I'd've thought would be moved to whatever row on the datasheet covers the melee attacks, though, rather than as a unit-level rule, going with the 8th/9th templating.


Agree. All these USR should be on the unit card. Isn't a BoN classified as monstrous infantry like ogres in 9th Age? Ah, and one more thing:
List those abilities in alphabetical order. Yes, it's nitpicky but also much cleaner.


Are the unit entries for 9th even in alphabetical order?


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





If you want to look up USRs of a unit without hassle in a rulebook it is better to turn pages in just one direction when you go from top to bottom. Honestly not a revolutionary concept.
   
Made in us
Veteran Knight Baron in a Crusader





 Dysartes wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
I really don't see how a data sheet having the short hand term for a rule that let's them advance and fire without penalty and a data sheet having the full text "can advance and fire without penalty" changes anything.

USRs wouldn't add any depth to the core rules...

Not this bad take again. Let's go...

A, USRs would be defined at the start of an edition, so that certain rules have a standard set of wording and implementation. This wording could allow for wildcards for values, if you want some options for variation (like a Feel No Pain X+, where X is the value you have to roll to make the FNP save).
B, GW would need to demonstrate some discipline here - no USR should be there just to refer to a collection of other USRs, for example. I'd suggest 1-2 pages of them, unless you need to use diagrams to explain something in more detail. Assuming they can achieve that, you then reprint the full USR page(s) in each Codex as an appendix.
C, Assuming GW stick with the datasheet format the next time they reboot the game, if space on the datasheet permits then you print the full rules text of the USR there. No-one that I've seen advocating for USRs has ever said that can't happen. The point here is to reduce the number of rules which are very similar but not quite the same to be standardised instead, as well as allowing players to refer to the USR name as a shorthand when discussing units/factions.

Personally, I'd like to see this come into effect alongside a better use of keywords for weapons - having BOLT as a keyword, for example, would allow the Bolter Discipline to be written in a much more elegant fashion, as well as future-proofing it.


To be clear, I 100% think that a proper implementation of USRs is beneficial for all of the reasons you posted.
I just do not think that that having the rules text printed in the rulebook as opposed to the data sheets (or ideally in both places!) is really "adding depth to the core game".
"Depth" in core rules would be like, "when a unit is being shot at, they can go to ground, becoming pinned but gaining +1 to saves". A USR might be printed in the core rulebook but it's not a "core rule" in that you need to grant that USR to a unit, in a codex, in order for that rule to have any impact.
At the end of the day, "Heavy Weapons Platform (see p 97, core rulebook)" and "This unit suffers no penalty for moving and firing a Heavy Weapon" are no different from each other.
   
Made in us
Ancient Venerable Dark Angels Dreadnought





yes, it does.

These are Black Templars, I expect if they get in assault with my unit, it's going to hurt. I knew that going into the game, like I know that Iron Hands will have different strengths too that are not geared around assault.
It's kinda how Orks get different rules for different clans too, you know.

If i wanted samey-samey, I'd play chess.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

 bullyboy wrote:
yes, it does.

These are Black Templars, I expect if they get in assault with my unit, it's going to hurt. I knew that going into the game, like I know that Iron Hands will have different strengths too that are not geared around assault.
It's kinda how Orks get different rules for different clans too, you know.

If i wanted samey-samey, I'd play chess.
I think it's a matter of degree.

I'm fine with Black Templars or White Scars being better at assault than Iron Hands or Imperial Fists. But should they be more than twice as good, when paying the same points costs? I don't think so.

Look at Orks, for example. Bad Moons get an extra 6" of range and another point of AP on 6s to-wound with ranged attacks. That's a nice little buff-but the only time it's gonna double damage is if you're shooting at a 2+ armor model who you only wound on 6s. It can happen (Land Raiders or Knights with a certain Relic, and basic shootas) but it's not something you'll see with any regularity, and moreover, while it is twice as effective... Needing over 100 shots to take a wound off is worse than needing over 50, but neither is ANY good.

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in gb
Witch Hunter in the Shadows





 Dysartes wrote:
I'll disagree with you on having Daemon (Nurgle) in place of those four rules being cleaner - if you have to look away from the datasheet to a second source to find that D(N) covers four other rules but does nothing on its own, then you're adding cerebral load for no real benefit. If the datasheet is looking cluttered, you put the USR rather than the full rule.
It was more something I noticed with page layout, lots of empty space. I wound up moving non-rules (daemon, nurgle) to a keyword system instead.

But this is getting somewhat off topic.
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 bullyboy wrote:
yes, it does.

These are Black Templars, I expect if they get in assault with my unit, it's going to hurt. I knew that going into the game, like I know that Iron Hands will have different strengths too that are not geared around assault.
It's kinda how Orks get different rules for different clans too, you know.

If i wanted samey-samey, I'd play chess.


That isn't at all the point being made.


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

 Gert wrote:
I think that Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers should go back to random generation, that way there's no building a list/strategy around a Warlord Trait or Psychic Power. Keeping a specific set of Traits/Powers should be left to Crusade where the focus is on narrative.
Before we go back to randomly rolling for these, I would rather not use them at all.

In the current iteration some traits and powers are just too situational to be useful for any character and army.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in us
Long-Range Black Templar Land Speeder Pilot






Same. I would rather not have them, then have to roll randomly for them.
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





While we're on the subject, does anyone actually use the "randomly roll 2" part of abilities that allow you to have two random ones or choose a single one?


 
   
Made in gb
Lit By the Flames of Prospero






Is that a thing?
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

 Sim-Life wrote:
While we're on the subject, does anyone actually use the "randomly roll 2" part of abilities that allow you to have two random ones or choose a single one?
Local Sisters players are actually rolling. Unless you absolutely need that 5+ deny against 1k Sons or GK.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in ca
Jinking Ravenwing Land Speeder Pilot



Canada

 the_scotsman wrote:
A thought occurred to me when reading the new Black Templars rules previews. Please note, this is not a 'black templars op' thread, just pointing something out regarding how much of a unit's power budget currently resides within rules external to the model itself.

As an opponent of this particular player, there is a burden of knowledge on me that I need to recall that the offensive power of this particular unit among the 140 datasheets present within codex:Space Marines can augment its offensive power by a factor of more than 7 times from the statline present on the datasheet.

...Does this enhance your gaming experience?

If so, why? What are the positives for a miniatures game for there to be this degree of stat differentiation between what could actually be literally the same exact model fielded by the same opponent in two different sessions of play?


It does enhance my gaming experience as it adds more variety to the 40K tabletop ecosystem. I like that a unit of Black Templars Assault Intercessors acts differently than a unit of Dark Angels Assault Intercessors unit. I like that Deathwing Terminators perform differently than Black Templars ones.

Does it add to my "mental load?" Sure - I guess, but I find it manageable and the payoff in variety (for me and my opponent) is worth it. I know my list and choose what mental load to take on with my choices. I understand that some are really worried about "gotchas." If an enemy unit that I ignore turns out to be quite killy due to its sub-faction and Strats then I guess at worst I have learned something. A Squad of Sisters with Storm Bolters taught my Deathwing Knights about Blessed Bolts...Now I know!

I also understand that some folks might not like this. You can always choose to play a toned-down list. You can ask to play Open Play without Stratagem, doctrines, faction abilities etc. It can make playing in a tourney tough if you are a new player, but I think this would be true regardless.

I do not miss USRs, but I note that they have taken more of a middle-road in 9th Ed. Language is tighter/more similar between similar rules and they have Faction-wide Special Rules.

I enjoy Stratagems, but I do think that the "fight twice/shoot twice/inflict Mortal Wounds on a X" flavours of Stratagems could go. They have a warping effect on balance due to how they scale (or don't!).

I respect, though, that many Dakka posters will have differing tastes from me. Its all good. Perhaps the design wheel will turn and it will be me complaining (or just walking away).

All you have to do is fire three rounds a minute, and stand 
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord





In My Lab

What is the issue with USRs?

Clocks for the clockmaker! Cogs for the cog throne! 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






a_typical_hero wrote:
 Gert wrote:
I think that Warlord Traits and Psychic Powers should go back to random generation, that way there's no building a list/strategy around a Warlord Trait or Psychic Power. Keeping a specific set of Traits/Powers should be left to Crusade where the focus is on narrative.
Before we go back to randomly rolling for these, I would rather not use them at all.
Agree. And I spent most of 6th/7th taking a named character partially just to not deal with random warlord traits. Either pick them or get rid of them. . . Preferably get rid of them.

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 es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

You can even have "Character Upgrade points" to be different from "unit" points and give proper points to Relics/Warlord Traits/etc... that take points from that specific pool so people doesn't need to take less units.

Like if you play 1500 you have 150 CUP if you play 2000 you have 200 , etc...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/10/09 21:13:41


 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in ie
Ship's Officer





 JNAProductions wrote:
What is the issue with USRs?


Nothing. But like everything the way GW uses them is arseways and makes everyone hate them.


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: