Switch Theme:

What are the old rules that you found distasteful?  [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
Beautiful and Deadly Keeper of Secrets





AP3 weapons were also weirdly statted. Either they were artillery based weapons that had blast or large so they erased entire squads if they could manage to hit or they were on esoteric models like Tau's Auxillary and oddly statted like stormtroopers S3 AP3 that both made them overly expensive, but still weak against what their primary target was.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Galas wrote:
??¿¿?¿? Most armies had enough AP on their basic troop to negate the armor of all horde infantry in the game. AP4 weapons were nearly non existant. So all the "special" weapons one could bring with the exception of flamers were AP3 or better.
In practice the opposite was often true - AP4 weapons were too common for players to put value into the expensive 4+ armour save upgrades, especially when 4+ cover was available. 'eavy armour and grenadiers for example.
Anything that was heavy but not 'anti-marine/anti-tank' capped out at AP 4 including the dispersed fire mode of some guns and a lot of secondary vehicle weapons.

By comparison some armies had no AP 3 at all. It got a bit more common in 5th but for the most part it was either artillery/missiles or a specialist anti-marine gun. Most things just jumped straight to AP 2.

As for the rest - AP 6/- was your horde weapons (lasgun, spike rifle, shoota, kroot rifle, etc) and weird stuff (snipers, spliter rifles, etc).
AP5 was the elite weapons (bolters, gauss flayers, pulse rifles, hotguns, shuriken catapults, etc), usually carried by models with 4+ or better saves that gained nothing from hiding in cover from small arms.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut




A.T. wrote:


As for the rest - AP 6/- was your horde weapons (lasgun, spike rifle, shoota, kroot rifle, etc) and weird stuff (snipers, spliter rifles, etc).
AP5 was the elite weapons (bolters, gauss flayers, pulse rifles, hotguns, shuriken catapults, etc), usually carried by models with 4+ or better saves that gained nothing from hiding in cover from small arms.


This bit is not quite right, basically every basic weapon for basic troops choices for everyone other than guard, orks and nids was AP5

Both sorts of Eldar had AP 5 on their 5+ save grunts and all their pistols for example all of which definitely wanted to be hiding in cover. And fire warriors, while having 4+ saves, where hardly that elite.

And elite 4+ save guys (aspect warriors, storm troopers, 5th Ed Necron warriors, somewhat scouts) absolutely did want to be in cover as AP4 was absolutely rife with heavy bolters being everywhere in Imperial armies, marines spamming ass cannons and auto cannons being pretty common too.

And then because AP 5 or worse heavy weapons were basically useless, Eldar just ended up spamming their AP2 star cannons everywhere, especially in 3rd Ed where they had as many shots as a shuriken cannon. (Though EMLs with AP3 or AP4 blast were also pretty popular after starcannons dropped to 2 shots).

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/01 22:13:19


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut







Hull Points in 6th and 7th. Not necessarily the concept, but that the damage tables/HP ratios were designed so that it was easier to use 'general-purpose' multishot weapons like Scatter Lasers, than it was to actually attempt to kill vehicles with supposedly 'dedicated' (and more expensive) anti-tank weapons like Lascannons.

Oh, and the general tendency for there to usually be "one weapon to rule them all" each edition.
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






 MagicJuggler wrote:
Hull Points in 6th and 7th. Not necessarily the concept, but that the damage tables/HP ratios were designed so that it was easier to use 'general-purpose' multishot weapons like Scatter Lasers, than it was to actually attempt to kill vehicles with supposedly 'dedicated' (and more expensive) anti-tank weapons like Lascannons.


I've house ruled 7th a few times giving all vehicles 3+ armor saves except for skimmers/flyers getting 4+ which works out exceptionally well. I also play it that rear armor hits have 1 less to their armor save It solves a lot of the high strength, poor AP spam as it cuts their effectiveness by a 1/3 but had no impact on the effectiveness of the true anti tank weapons like melta, krak missiles, lascannons, etc while the auto cannon class weapons are still fully effective against skimmers and flyers but not so much against ground vehicles. It also helped with gauss spam making vehicles completely useless.

In melee it makes it so infantry have a lot harder time just punching a vehicle to death unless they use power weapons or krak grenades against the rear armor while it made walkers super tanky and much more on par with MCs.

"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
2nd Ed Imperial Guard opening barrage.

For every Leman Russ, Basilisk and Griffon in your army, you got essentially a free Battle Cannon shot at the start of the game.

Themeatically it was great. But man that ruined many a game with how effective it could be.


But that was back in 2nd edition, where you had, what, two of those? Mind you, you also got one for each comm-link (vox-caster, for the young 'uns) too.

The rules I couldn't be bothered with were the ones for grenades with lingering effects - Blind, Smoke, Plasma. Vortex too, but that was less annoying because they were hardly ever used and it made sense for them to be special.
And the trend for everything to have their own bundle of special rules. The rot started in the middle of 1st edition when Marines got their special rules for power armour* and leadership**, but now it's just ridiculous.

*Marines in Marine Power Armour could ignore movement penalties for equipment - not a huge deal because everyone in just about every army got suspensors to cancel out the penalties anyway.
** Marines had to fail a Ld test twice before breaking and fleeing. Failing once just meant they wouldn't move closer to the enemy. Just give 'em all +1 Ld; after all, that same WD issue gave them all +1 T.
   
Made in us
Just the Bare Metal




Along with the all or nothing AP system, one of the rule changes in third edition that really changed the player base and the background was orks going down from shooting sometimes on 4+ to always on 5+

Orks were a goofy army, but then they became a joke army, literally a punchline. It’s this joke about tau vs orks, orks only having one move.

Andy Chambers said explicitly that when they were redesigning 40k he wanted everything to have a superficial niche, to effectively flanderize the armies. that is what happened, and I think orks stopped being a really main faction as a result of not having a reliable hit roll for rokkits.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

The Flanderisation of Orks is something I didn't like either. Orks being bad shots is fine, but it's not so fine when even the Orks that choose to go into combat with big shooty guns also suck at shooting.

Then again, Orks suffered from all being made into generic Goffs when Gorkamorka came around. Took them years to recover from that and regain their colour.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 01:05:18


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

 
   
Made in us
Been Around the Block




Vero Beach, FL

Hull Points and Random Charge Distances

SO. MUCH. FRUSTRATION.
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






 H.B.M.C. wrote:
The Flanderisation of Orks is something I didn't like either. Orks being bad shots is fine, but it's not so fine when even the Orks that choose to go into combat with big shooty guns also suck at shooting.

Then again, Orks suffered from all being made into generic Goffs when Gorkamorka came around. Took them years to recover from that and regain their colour.

Yeah I have mixed feelings about that. I liked that the Orks wound up with a more differentiated profile than their prior version, but really dislike that they lost a lot of their original character, such as Madboyz and Boar Boyz. Iirc there was some more Klan rules brought back in later during 3rd or 4th, but they never really regai ed their former zaniness.

Those RT/2nd era Ork sculpts are true highlights of the old GW catalogue. Fantastic models.

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 pl
Regular Dakkanaut




Random charge ranges were indeed a bummer, although not as much as with Warhammer Fantasy Battles (where maneuvering for close combat was the name of the game) where the change to random charges just made me stop playing the game right away at that point.

For 40K we tried to alleviate the stupidity of random charges by using "average dice" (2-3-3-4-4-5) for games at home. Helped a little bit.

But the most distasteful rule I remember was two units giving cover to each other at the same time. I'm sure there were plenty of other ones, but this one I remember vividly :]
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





Curvaceous wrote:
...and I think orks stopped being a really main faction as a result of not having a reliable hit roll for rokkits.
I'm not really sure that's the case - orks in 3rd edition got three rokkit launchers for the same cost as a single guard missile launcher, and they could move and shoot with them.

Madboyz and Boar Boyz for what it's worth, did have rules in 3rd but they were hidden away in the feral orks codex. Though it's always surprised me how little of the orks extended vehicle/unit range has never made it to 40k outside of the odd apoc book.
   
Made in gb
Nurgle Predator Driver with an Infestation




Should be remembered that Orks also improved in close combat, they were just a T4, I2 guardsman in 2nd.
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka






That was deliberate, back to 2nd edition Warhammer, to make orcs and humans mirrors of each other - humans are slightly faster, orcs a little stronger.

Do you know why Orks ended up with BS 2? It was inthe original Last Stand at Glazer's Creek battle report for 2nd edition - Praetorian Imperial Guard vs feral Orks. The orks got BS 2 for that scenario to make it better for them to close into melee rather than hang back and trade long-range fire with the Guard. Then when 3rd edition came out it was applied across the faction for the same reason.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
LOL it really didn't. It just meant you went with mostly AP2, because AP3 was that absurdly rare. Also in the newer system Marines (AND Terminators despite the people crying otherwise) became more durable to various weapons compared to before. Yes you're weaker vs a Gauss Flayer and now the Galvanic Rifle. However even with Manlet Marines having W1 they were more durable vs an array of weapons so that's fine.
You mean you had to bring specific weapons to deal with specific targets, rather than what we have now where the middle of the road weapons do everything adequately enough to not require specialist equipment.

Oh how terrible.

The whole argument of "oh specific weapons for specific targets" has always been a lie that the defenders of the old system tell themselves. Nobody was specifically bringing AP4 or AP3. They either brought high strength with high rate of fire (with AP just being a bonus) or they made sure everything was AP2. Everything meant Marines not hugging cover was laughable. Actually, Marines hugging the cover was still laughable.

The old wounding table mightve been better slightly (and only slightly), but the old AP system with all or nothing meant you brought weapons that ignored the problem altogether instead of tailoring for specific targets.


I played a couple of games of 5th edition not to long ago with my friends, and it was astounding how pronounced the right weapon-right target effect was compared to nowadays.

It felt a lot more responsive and well playing, since like if I put a battle cannon shell onto a squad of marines, the squad just died basically. If it target a predator with a vanquisher gun, it goes right through and breaks things. If I target a termigaunts with a punisher cannon, they just evaporate.

It feels snappy and decisive, and not this mushy thing where everything feels and responds the same way to fire, and there aren't really specific counters for target types so much as the choice between better or cheap.

But on the flip side, a vanquisher gun doesn't do well against any squad target, a punisher cannon can't hurt vehicles and doesn't do anything to marines either. The battle cannon is the most versatile, being good against both marines and light vehicles, but it really doesn't do anything to heavy vehicles and barely makes a dent in horde infantry squads.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

Part of the problem with "right weapon right job" is that armies don't have a diverse mix of stuff, each army is generally skewed.

Playing Marines? That punisher is useless. Even 4+ infantry is rare and it's mostly all 3+ or better.
Playing Nids? Now that Vanquiser is useless. There's not a vehicle in sight.

I think 40k isn't structured in a way to make that work.
It's incredibly diverse on one hand;
There's an army who's basic troops are T5/2/3W (probably 4W soon) and another army who's basic troops are T3/6+/1W.

And yet incredibly homogenous on the other hand;
That first army is pretty much ONLY T5/2+ 3+W whereas there's other armies where the only infantry they get follows that super squishy profile.

Imagine coming against Custodes if AP2 weapons were rare and taken only for niche targets and anything else was completely ineffective.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/05/03 18:56:18


 
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 kirotheavenger wrote:
Part of the problem with "right weapon right job" is that armies don't have a diverse mix of stuff, each army is generally skewed.

Playing Marines? That punisher is useless. Even 4+ infantry is rare and it's mostly all 3+ or better.
Playing Nids? Now that Vanquiser is useless. There's not a vehicle in sight.

I think 40k isn't structured in a way to make that work.
It's incredibly diverse on one hand;
There's an army who's basic troops are T5/2/3W (probably 4W soon) and another army who's basic troops are T3/6+/1W.

And yet incredibly homogenous on the other hand;
That first army is pretty much ONLY T5/2+ 3+W whereas there's other armies where the only infantry they get follows that super squishy profile.

Imagine coming against Custodes if AP2 weapons were rare and taken only for niche targets and anything else was completely ineffective.


Armies generally presented 3 or so target profiles out of about 5 total different profile ranges [Light Infantry, Heavy Infantry, Light Armor, Heavy Armor, Monstrous Creature], so if you were take all comers, then you'd have a balance of options to handle everything in your list, and only a little bit would be ineffective, which is overall fine. Like, that's also where tailoring comes from.

Nowadays, it doesn't feel like tailoring even gives an advantage.

Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Hardened Veteran Guardsman





 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...Nowadays, it doesn't feel like tailoring even gives an advantage.

Would that necessarily be a bad thing? Sure, you should be rewarded in some way for making a clever/balanced TAC list, but (and this may be my personal feelings re: tailoring coming through) I'd rather win through competent generalship, and complaints that tailoring no longer gives you an edge fall somewhat flat to me.
   
Made in us
Monster-Slaying Daemonhunter





 waefre_1 wrote:
 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
...Nowadays, it doesn't feel like tailoring even gives an advantage.

Would that necessarily be a bad thing? Sure, you should be rewarded in some way for making a clever/balanced TAC list, but (and this may be my personal feelings re: tailoring coming through) I'd rather win through competent generalship, and complaints that tailoring no longer gives you an edge fall somewhat flat to me.


Uh... yeah, it's a bad thing because it means that everything is the same and there's one best solution. Theoretically, if I could gain an advantage by tailoring to this scenario by lets say taking more Vanquisher AT guns and fewer Punisher Cannons to defeat my Marine-tankhammer playing opponent, but at the expense of being much weaker against a Tyranids-horde opponent, this means that I have to make more reasoned and considered decisions when composing my force to make it able to take either of the enemies, and it means that when my forces hit the table I'll have more moving pieces and tactical depth to my force on the table as it responds to the present reality of the situation.

If everything is basically the same and I want to fill my list with mid strength, AP1/2, D2/3, high rate of fire weapons to defeat any enemy, then it's less of a strategic and tactical problem to win the game. Take my guns, and point it at whatever's scariest and mob the objectives.



If tailoring gives an advantage, that means you've made some trade off to make your list able to take all comers. This is, of course a good thing.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/03 20:51:53


Guardsmen, hear me! Cadia may lie in ruin, but her proud people do not! For each brother and sister who gave their lives to Him as martyrs, we will reap a vengeance fiftyfold! Cadia may be no more, but will never be forgotten; our foes shall tremble in fear at the name, for their doom shall come from the barrels of Cadian guns, fired by Cadian hands! Forward, for vengeance and retribution, in His name and the names of our fallen comrades! 
   
Made in us
Battlewagon Driver with Charged Engine




Between Alpha and Omega, and a little to the left

To perhaps bring a counter example, the comparative AP system may make it feel like
you're "bringing the right tools for the right job". but only so far if you have a wide range of things to pick from. When you're playing a much more restrictive army list, then those options blended in together much more and which ones were even worth taking actually depended more on your ability to keep them on the table because you lacked the same amount of redundancy.

Sure, when you're playing marines or guard, you can just shove X or Y onto B or A and you were fine. if you were playing orks, nids, or demons? you have a hammer, and everything looked like nails.

The other thing is that the low Armor saves actually feel like they exist. Have a 6+ or 5+? No you don't, because 90% of the basic infantry weapons had Ap 5 weapons.

Want to help support my plastic addiction? I sell stories about humans fighting to survive in a space age frontier.
Lord Harrab wrote:"Gimme back my leg-bone! *wack* Ow, don't hit me with it!" commonly uttered by Guardsman when in close combat with Orks.

Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts.  
   
Made in gb
Wing Commander





Bristol (UK)

If AP was rarer I don't think people would have the issue of "everything kills everything".

Space Marine's standard small arm being AP1 or even 2 depending on which way the wind is blowing is silly and shows the problem.
Doctrines in general means the most common army is practically drowning in armour piercing.

If things were a little more restrained, I feel that'd really improve things.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 kirotheavenger wrote:
If AP was rarer I don't think people would have the issue of "everything kills everything".

Space Marine's standard small arm being AP1 or even 2 depending on which way the wind is blowing is silly and shows the problem.
Doctrines in general means the most common army is practically drowning in armour piercing.

If things were a little more restrained, I feel that'd really improve things.


That's part of the problem, sure. I think poorly-thought-out damage/wounds stats, overly constrained S/T, and the way blasts work are bigger ones, since they make spammable mid-power (S5-8, moderate to good AP, D2+, at least two shots or blast) too efficient at killing heavy infantry and vehicles. If S9+ existed, or if you didn't need S8 to wound Marines on 2+, or if you didn't have whole armies of 2-3W infantry, or if vehicles/monsters all had a DR mechanic or 2-3x the wounds they've got the anti-everything guns would be less of an issue. Or even just if you weren't rerolling everything all the time.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

What happens to blast weapons if instead of random rolls and arbitrary breakpoints for the current size of a targeted unit we just did something like:

Generic Large Blast Template Weapon:
A: 1 S: 7 AP: -1 D: 2 - Blast, Impact 15

Blast: If this weapon rolls a hit on its attack, for each model in the targeted unit roll a die, and for each roll of 4+ the unit takes a hit. On a miss do the same but instead count only unmodified rolls of 6. No blast weapon may score more hits than its impact rating.

Then for the old small blast template weapons just give them a lower impact rating. You can also play around with the 'hit' numbers with special rules to make weapons more or less impactful.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/04 00:22:06


 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

I actually quite like that idea. The only issue is the all or nothing nature.

Roll to Hit, and if you hit roll to hit again against each model. Miss and you hit nothing. Your blast goes off, and may or may not catch people within its radius. That's fine. Your blast misses, and the shell vanishes into the ether.

The random rolls are meant to represent a miss that catches one or two people. The issue is that they tend to be too swingy.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/04 01:51:38


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

 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

 H.B.M.C. wrote:
I actually quite like that idea. The only issue is the all or nothing nature.

Roll to Hit, and if you hit roll to hit again against each model. Miss and you hit nothing.

I made it so it wasn't all or nothing. On a miss, you still get to fish for 6s to deal damage which, to my mind, simulates only catching a couple models under an old template due to scattering. In practice, I'd want to playtest the rule and see if maybe some weapons need to roll two attack roles and get like 3+ on both hitting, 4+ on one hitting, and 6+ on a complete miss.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 kirotheavenger wrote:
If AP was rarer I don't think people would have the issue of "everything kills everything".

Space Marine's standard small arm being AP1 or even 2 depending on which way the wind is blowing is silly and shows the problem.
Doctrines in general means the most common army is practically drowning in armour piercing.

If things were a little more restrained, I feel that'd really improve things.

The problem isn't Doctrines or Super Doctrines, it's the fact they exist together. GW should've chosen one or the other.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in ca
Secretive Dark Angels Veteran




Vancouver, BC

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The problem isn't Doctrines or Super Doctrines, it's the fact they exist together. GW should've chosen one or the other.

Fear the might of my chapter for they have mastered Super Doctrine 2 and now their power level is beyond your petty mortal comprehension!
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Canadian 5th wrote:
Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
The problem isn't Doctrines or Super Doctrines, it's the fact they exist together. GW should've chosen one or the other.

Fear the might of my chapter for they have mastered Super Doctrine 2 and now their power level is beyond your petty mortal comprehension!

FWIW limiting Chapters and their Successors to get a single turn benefit at thr cost of being pure isn't necessarily bad. Raven Guard having a turn to get to wound Characters better? Sure the scaling is wonky but it isn't necessarily broken. However you also get it with a bonus to all your Rapid Fire and Assault weapons. That's been bad rules writing.

CaptainStabby wrote:
If Tyberos falls and needs to catch himself it's because the ground needed killing.

 jy2 wrote:
BTW, I can't wait to run Double-D-thirsters! Man, just thinking about it gets me Khorney.

 vipoid wrote:
Indeed - what sort of bastard would want to use their codex?

 MarsNZ wrote:
ITT: SoB players upset that they're receiving the same condescending treatment that they've doled out in every CSM thread ever.
 
   
Made in us
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator





Sweeping Advances (as an ork player this CRIPPLED me), and ATSKNF ignoring it.

6th Ed Drop pods. As a CSM player, having pods drop and not scatter was furiating.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Sweeping Advances (as an ork player this CRIPPLED me), and ATSKNF ignoring it.

6th Ed Drop pods. As a CSM player, having pods drop and not scatter was furiating.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/05/07 11:04:21


 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Nightlord1987 wrote:
6th Ed Drop pods. As a CSM player, having pods drop and not scatter was furiating.
I don't remember that one, was it a formation?
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: