Switch Theme:

Discussion: The worst 40k rule ever?  [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
Longtime Dakkanaut





AngryAngel80 wrote:
Yeah, my point with the whole tirade is that it just sucks they do that. Even with options that are more fluff feel than on the board potent. Would it kill them to maybe put two of unique weapon systems in a box ?

If i wanted to run some of the chain cannons yeah I'd look at FW but probably will still end up costing a mint with their new costs for it in the US. It's just such a shame they didn't cut back on some other weapon options in the havoc kit to at least include two of the new gun for players that want it. As I don't know anybody would bought 4 boxes or more of them around here. Even with that incentive.

Ironically that may have been the best thing about Primaris Marines right up to the point that they started randomly adding Sergeant weapon options to Intercessor; if they had an option it was in the box. None of this "Hey you can also build your Tac squad with any of these five heavy weapons that we didn't put in the box!" nonsense. Some of the character options were only ever available as part of a boxed set, but they were available without kit-bashing anything.

If I had it to do over from the first purchase knowing what I know now I probably wouldn't own any mini-marine models at all outside of maybe a scout squad for when points were tight (and a squad of Centurion Devastators because I love that model), and as much as I'm still using Vindicators, Whirlwinds, and ordinary Dreads more than any of the Primaris vehicles I can also see that it's only a matter of time until those options get supplanted by Impulsor-based tanks and war-walkers of some stripe. I try not to be too salty about that, but it's still annoying.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/19 01:44:24


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




Yeah, I'd agree with you there. They still could have thought ahead to have Sgt melee weapons in with the Intercessor kits but mostly they do come with it all.

Think of my pain, when I started old marines the only options were plasma pistol, Missile launcher and flamer in the box. It was sad, sad days for sure.

At that point you didn't even have plastic scouts yet, you needed to buy them in metal blister packs. Good times.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Sounds like you started playing close to when I did, the basic Marine box at the time was 10 metal bodies with the arms and backpacks in plastic, and all the marine tanks were just the plastic Rhino kit with the extra bits as metal add-ons.

Yeah, good times.
   
Made in gb
Assassin with Black Lotus Poison




Bristol

 Blndmage wrote:
ThatMG wrote:
Another one was Cover. Can't remember the edition someone will state it.

When you assault a unit in cover you wouldn't get to fight first unless you had assault grenades I think.

Also might have had same time combat. Also Power fists always strike last.

Also the initiative stat.


Playing Necrons, we've never had grenades if any kind, it made some of those editions pure hell.


But Necrons were all pretty much I1 or 2 weren't they (except for units like wraiths and flayed ones)? So grenades wouldn't even have helped that much as most armies would be swinging first regardless.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/19 06:20:30


The Laws of Thermodynamics:
1) You cannot win. 2) You cannot break even. 3) You cannot stop playing the game.

Colonel Flagg wrote:You think you're real smart. But you're not smart; you're dumb. Very dumb. But you've met your match in me.
 
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





West Lafayette, IN

Not the worst rule, but the misinterpretation of the Consolidation rule in 3rd was fairly bad. You had a 3" Consolidation move which could allow you to lock another unit into Combat with no recourse on the receiving player whereas if you did a Sweeping Advance your unit could be shot freely by the entirety of the opposing army, range and LOS permitting. For some odd reason, in the defense of 3rd Ed. I have people mentioning the Consolidation lock as a reason whole armies would get wiped, to which I would reply "Keep your units more than 3" apart, I never had that problem." The IMMEDIATE response was almost universally "But Consolidation was 2D6."

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut







 BaconCatBug wrote:
Not Online!!! wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:
Belatedly - and I'm not going back through the thread to see if it has already been mentioned - but the worst current rule in 40k isn't even a written rule. Instead, it's a GW policy that is poisoning the game.

I am, of course, referring to "No model, no rules"

Pull your collective heads out of your backsides, GW, and realise that people/companies making third party parts are a, doing so because you have left a gap in the market you're not willing to fulfil in a reasonable manner; and b, conversion parts (as opposed to proxy models) still require people to buy your damned kits.

If I could take over the Towers of Lenton tomorrow, guess what the first edifice I'd start to tear down would be...


This is probably the most pressing issue.
And is especially annoying due to how certain factions are treated with updates to their lines.
That's not GW's fault, it's Chapterhouse's for ruining a good thing by not playing by the rules.

In order for Chapterhouse to have not played by the rules, some form of rules - ideally legally sound ones, unlike the majority of GW's claims - would've needed to have been established.

Chapterhouse did two things they probably shouldn't've done - they made models for three or four unit entries that were published by GW never made models for, and they got the verbiage that they used to describe other parts slightly off. The latter was corrected before the court case actually began, from memory, possibly on the back of a steer from their pro bono legal team.

Let us not forget that GW's Head of IP was shown to be incompetent on the stand, that they were revealed to be trying to get Gary Chalk to sign over ownership of art he had produced for them many years before while the case was going on, and they were trying to claim they owned terms like "halberd", "grenade launcher" and "Roman numeral" - I'm pretty sure the Romans own the IP on the latter...

I mean, when you have to withdraw, or fail to prevail, on 75% of your claims - with the possibility of losing some of the remaining 25% on appeal if they hadn't gone after the CH founder's personal accounts - you don't get to claim that the other party didn't "play by the rules".

With GW producing entries for characters and options that they didn't produce, they shouldn't've been surprised that third parties were going to produce compatible parts (or models) to till those gaps or to offer players aesthetic alternatives. However, a competent legal team would've had some form of license available to allow said third parties to handle these areas to a minimum quality standard, so GW could produce what GW wanted to produce.

2019 Plog - Dysartes Twitches - 2019 Output

My Twitch stream - going live at 7pm GMT Tuesday & Thursday, 12pm Sunday (work permitting).

Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

 Just Tony wrote:
Not the worst rule, but the misinterpretation of the Consolidation rule in 3rd was fairly bad. You had a 3" Consolidation move which could allow you to lock another unit into Combat with no recourse on the receiving player whereas if you did a Sweeping Advance your unit could be shot freely by the entirety of the opposing army, range and LOS permitting. For some odd reason, in the defense of 3rd Ed. I have people mentioning the Consolidation lock as a reason whole armies would get wiped, to which I would reply "Keep your units more than 3" apart, I never had that problem." The IMMEDIATE response was almost universally "But Consolidation was 2D6."

There was also a not-too-uncommon misinterpretation that consolidating into another enemy unit meant fighting another round of combat immediately, leading to claims that an entire army could be wiped out by a single enemy unit in one turn.

 
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





West Lafayette, IN

 insaniak wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Not the worst rule, but the misinterpretation of the Consolidation rule in 3rd was fairly bad. You had a 3" Consolidation move which could allow you to lock another unit into Combat with no recourse on the receiving player whereas if you did a Sweeping Advance your unit could be shot freely by the entirety of the opposing army, range and LOS permitting. For some odd reason, in the defense of 3rd Ed. I have people mentioning the Consolidation lock as a reason whole armies would get wiped, to which I would reply "Keep your units more than 3" apart, I never had that problem." The IMMEDIATE response was almost universally "But Consolidation was 2D6."

There was also a not-too-uncommon misinterpretation that consolidating into another enemy unit meant fighting another round of combat immediately, leading to claims that an entire army could be wiped out by a single enemy unit in one turn.


Doesn't it give you lots of faith in the future of humanity when reading comprehension is that poor?

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Just Tony wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Not the worst rule, but the misinterpretation of the Consolidation rule in 3rd was fairly bad. You had a 3" Consolidation move which could allow you to lock another unit into Combat with no recourse on the receiving player whereas if you did a Sweeping Advance your unit could be shot freely by the entirety of the opposing army, range and LOS permitting. For some odd reason, in the defense of 3rd Ed. I have people mentioning the Consolidation lock as a reason whole armies would get wiped, to which I would reply "Keep your units more than 3" apart, I never had that problem." The IMMEDIATE response was almost universally "But Consolidation was 2D6."

There was also a not-too-uncommon misinterpretation that consolidating into another enemy unit meant fighting another round of combat immediately, leading to claims that an entire army could be wiped out by a single enemy unit in one turn.


Doesn't it give you lots of faith in the future of humanity when reading comprehension is that poor?


No, but it does give me faith in the future of humanity when a company can write rules that poorly on a consistent basis and stay in business for more than three decades. If obvious hacks like GW can make it then the rest of us are going to be just fine.
   
Made in us
Wicked Warp Spider





 Dysartes wrote:


I mean, when you have to withdraw, or fail to prevail, on 75% of your claims - with the possibility of losing some of the remaining 25% on appeal if they hadn't gone after the CH founder's personal accounts - you don't get to claim that the other party didn't "play by the rules".

With GW producing entries for characters and options that they didn't produce, they shouldn't've been surprised that third parties were going to produce compatible parts (or models) to till those gaps or to offer players aesthetic alternatives. However, a competent legal team would've had some form of license available to allow said third parties to handle these areas to a minimum quality standard, so GW could produce what GW wanted to produce.

But a result of all of this is that GW now kills or threatens to kills the "legality" of units with no kits or old kits. Ask Ork players. Before Chapterhouse, there was more encouragement to convert and make your own. You could do it with GW parts and few third party. I mean I don't think GW handled any of this properly, see my signature, but I think Chapterhouse played too dirty in their exploit and we all pay the consequences.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/19 13:08:52


Generic characters disappearing? Elite units of your army losing options and customizations? No longer finding that motivation to convert?
Your army could suffer Post-Chapterhouse Stress Disorder (PCSD)! If you think that your army is suffering one or more of the aforementioned symptoms, call us at 789-666-1982 for a quick diagnosis! 
   
Made in us
God-like Imperator Titan Commander





Halifax

Regarding rules, I'm honestly of the opinion these days that by and large GW is doing them right. It's odd to see how everyone complains about them, but generally ignore 'better' rules. Which makes me think they must be doing something right besides selling great miniatures.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut




 Blndmage wrote:
ThatMG wrote:
Another one was Cover. Can't remember the edition someone will state it.

When you assault a unit in cover you wouldn't get to fight first unless you had assault grenades I think.

Also might have had same time combat. Also Power fists always strike last.

Also the initiative stat.


Playing Necrons, we've never had grenades if any kind, it made some of those editions pure hell.

How you figure? Necrons were basically all I2 outside the 4th edition codex, and I'm pretty sure Wraiths had a rule to ignore terrain still (but who cares about them because Scarabs + Lightning Field was the REAL MVP)

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
Charging Dragon Prince





West Lafayette, IN

The Newman wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Not the worst rule, but the misinterpretation of the Consolidation rule in 3rd was fairly bad. You had a 3" Consolidation move which could allow you to lock another unit into Combat with no recourse on the receiving player whereas if you did a Sweeping Advance your unit could be shot freely by the entirety of the opposing army, range and LOS permitting. For some odd reason, in the defense of 3rd Ed. I have people mentioning the Consolidation lock as a reason whole armies would get wiped, to which I would reply "Keep your units more than 3" apart, I never had that problem." The IMMEDIATE response was almost universally "But Consolidation was 2D6."

There was also a not-too-uncommon misinterpretation that consolidating into another enemy unit meant fighting another round of combat immediately, leading to claims that an entire army could be wiped out by a single enemy unit in one turn.


Doesn't it give you lots of faith in the future of humanity when reading comprehension is that poor?


No, but it does give me faith in the future of humanity when a company can write rules that poorly on a consistent basis and stay in business for more than three decades. If obvious hacks like GW can make it then the rest of us are going to be just fine.


Cute.

Try getting a copy of the 3rd Ed. rulebook and look up the rules for Sweeping Advance and for Consolidation. They are clear enough that my brother, who was 12 at the time, had no issue reading it and not getting confused. The issue may indeed not be with GW there, though if you think so lowly of them feel free to find another game rather than waste our time with petty insults.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Just Tony wrote:
The Newman wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Not the worst rule, but the misinterpretation of the Consolidation rule in 3rd was fairly bad. You had a 3" Consolidation move which could allow you to lock another unit into Combat with no recourse on the receiving player whereas if you did a Sweeping Advance your unit could be shot freely by the entirety of the opposing army, range and LOS permitting. For some odd reason, in the defense of 3rd Ed. I have people mentioning the Consolidation lock as a reason whole armies would get wiped, to which I would reply "Keep your units more than 3" apart, I never had that problem." The IMMEDIATE response was almost universally "But Consolidation was 2D6."

There was also a not-too-uncommon misinterpretation that consolidating into another enemy unit meant fighting another round of combat immediately, leading to claims that an entire army could be wiped out by a single enemy unit in one turn.


Doesn't it give you lots of faith in the future of humanity when reading comprehension is that poor?


No, but it does give me faith in the future of humanity when a company can write rules that poorly on a consistent basis and stay in business for more than three decades. If obvious hacks like GW can make it then the rest of us are going to be just fine.


Cute.

Try getting a copy of the 3rd Ed. rulebook and look up the rules for Sweeping Advance and for Consolidation. They are clear enough that my brother, who was 12 at the time, had no issue reading it and not getting confused. The issue may indeed not be with GW there, though if you think so lowly of them feel free to find another game rather than waste our time with petty insults.


I think the word you're looking for is "cheeky", and it clearly was.

Whether Sweeping Advance and Consolidation in particular were clear in 3rd ed. is irrelevant, GW has been terrible at writing rules for years. Everyone knows this. It's not an insult, it's a statement of fact. Besides, GW isn't just the only game in town here, it's the only game for several towns in any direction. "Go find a different game" is functionally identical to "give up table-top wargaming".
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




True. People here have the option to play 9th age, which automaticly sets them at odds with anyone playing AoS or w40k, a small very closed infinity community, largest w40k group of players, and a group of AoS players.
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

 Kaiyanwang wrote:
 Dysartes wrote:


I mean, when you have to withdraw, or fail to prevail, on 75% of your claims - with the possibility of losing some of the remaining 25% on appeal if they hadn't gone after the CH founder's personal accounts - you don't get to claim that the other party didn't "play by the rules".

With GW producing entries for characters and options that they didn't produce, they shouldn't've been surprised that third parties were going to produce compatible parts (or models) to till those gaps or to offer players aesthetic alternatives. However, a competent legal team would've had some form of license available to allow said third parties to handle these areas to a minimum quality standard, so GW could produce what GW wanted to produce.

But a result of all of this is that GW now kills or threatens to kills the "legality" of units with no kits or old kits. Ask Ork players. Before Chapterhouse, there was more encouragement to convert and make your own. You could do it with GW parts and few third party. I mean I don't think GW handled any of this properly, see my signature, but I think Chapterhouse played too dirty in their exploit and we all pay the consequences.


It’s more a case GW is gleefully laughing that it’s convinced most of its consumers that 3rd party bit makers don’t exist. There’s still a fair number of 3rd party bit makers out there, but you can’t straightforward google them because of the screwed-up names they’ve given their stuff. Fact is GW wants all the monies, and doesn’t want to share. They believe it would be more harmful to their kit sales if they acknowledge the other companies, because who is going to buy a $50 kit from GW when you can get “alternate sculpts” from another company for half that?

It never ends well 
   
Made in gb
Battleship Captain




Generally allies. I don't mind having an allied force, but showing them as a single entity provides a lot of exploits.

Where you have two...essentially seperate...forces fighting together, it tends not to be a problem, but sharing abilities often leads to balance problems.

In 8th, using 200 points of guardsmen to generate command points to spend on a 400+ point knight is an obvious one.

In 7th, it was more about the 'if a unit contains at least one model with this rule' USRs, where lone white scar techmarine gave 9 frothing psychotic death company hit and run or Azrael made 50 guardsmen fearless and with a 4++ save.

Termagants expended for the Hive Mind: ~2835
 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran




 Just Tony wrote:
The Newman wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Not the worst rule, but the misinterpretation of the Consolidation rule in 3rd was fairly bad. You had a 3" Consolidation move which could allow you to lock another unit into Combat with no recourse on the receiving player whereas if you did a Sweeping Advance your unit could be shot freely by the entirety of the opposing army, range and LOS permitting. For some odd reason, in the defense of 3rd Ed. I have people mentioning the Consolidation lock as a reason whole armies would get wiped, to which I would reply "Keep your units more than 3" apart, I never had that problem." The IMMEDIATE response was almost universally "But Consolidation was 2D6."

There was also a not-too-uncommon misinterpretation that consolidating into another enemy unit meant fighting another round of combat immediately, leading to claims that an entire army could be wiped out by a single enemy unit in one turn.


Doesn't it give you lots of faith in the future of humanity when reading comprehension is that poor?


No, but it does give me faith in the future of humanity when a company can write rules that poorly on a consistent basis and stay in business for more than three decades. If obvious hacks like GW can make it then the rest of us are going to be just fine.


Cute.

Try getting a copy of the 3rd Ed. rulebook and look up the rules for Sweeping Advance and for Consolidation. They are clear enough that my brother, who was 12 at the time, had no issue reading it and not getting confused. The issue may indeed not be with GW there, though if you think so lowly of them feel free to find another game rather than waste our time with petty insults.


In full fairness to him, it was a bit funny. I'd try not to take insult on behalf of a company that is routinely poor at writing clear rules and/or proof reading as well. If I had the inclination I'd look back and bring up a ton of examples of their often lazy and low effort offerings that come with a high price tag. While I had no issue with those consolidation rules or understanding them the same can't be said for some other very off the wall interactions they leave in. So yes, it does feel bad people would make such mistakes, but it does also give me hope despite all the issues baked in we find a way to carry on regardless. You could say its the good in the bad I suppose.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/09/21 00:45:00


 
   
Made in us
Charging Dragon Prince





West Lafayette, IN

Spoiler:
AngryAngel80 wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
The Newman wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
 insaniak wrote:
 Just Tony wrote:
Not the worst rule, but the misinterpretation of the Consolidation rule in 3rd was fairly bad. You had a 3" Consolidation move which could allow you to lock another unit into Combat with no recourse on the receiving player whereas if you did a Sweeping Advance your unit could be shot freely by the entirety of the opposing army, range and LOS permitting. For some odd reason, in the defense of 3rd Ed. I have people mentioning the Consolidation lock as a reason whole armies would get wiped, to which I would reply "Keep your units more than 3" apart, I never had that problem." The IMMEDIATE response was almost universally "But Consolidation was 2D6."

There was also a not-too-uncommon misinterpretation that consolidating into another enemy unit meant fighting another round of combat immediately, leading to claims that an entire army could be wiped out by a single enemy unit in one turn.


Doesn't it give you lots of faith in the future of humanity when reading comprehension is that poor?


No, but it does give me faith in the future of humanity when a company can write rules that poorly on a consistent basis and stay in business for more than three decades. If obvious hacks like GW can make it then the rest of us are going to be just fine.


Cute.

Try getting a copy of the 3rd Ed. rulebook and look up the rules for Sweeping Advance and for Consolidation. They are clear enough that my brother, who was 12 at the time, had no issue reading it and not getting confused. The issue may indeed not be with GW there, though if you think so lowly of them feel free to find another game rather than waste our time with petty insults.


In full fairness to him, it was a bit funny. I'd try not to take insult on behalf of a company that is routinely poor at writing clear rules and/or proof reading as well. If I had the inclination I'd look back and bring up a ton of examples of their often lazy and low effort offerings that come with a high price tag. While I had no issue issue with those consolidation rules or understanding them the same can't be said for some other very off the wall interactions they leave in. So yes, it does feel bad people would make such mistakes, but it does also give me hope despite all the issues baked in we find a way to carry on regardless. You could say its the good in the bad I suppose.



I totally agree that GW in recent editions has been an absolute gak show as far as clarity of rules, and had we been discussing some of those rules I would have capitulated. However, my response was about a ruleset that shockingly is written well enough that those vagarities seemed to have eluded it. It's part of the reason I decided to go back to that ruleset instead of staying current.

www.classichammer.com

For 4-6th WFB, 2-5th 40k, and similar timeframe gaming

Looking for dice from the new AOS boxed set and Dark Imperium on the cheap. Let me know if you can help.
 CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Its AoS, it doesn't have to make sense.
 
   
Made in gb
Enigmatic Sorcerer of Chaos





 ClockworkZion wrote:
 flandarz wrote:
I started in 8th, so I can't say anything about previous editions, but the sheer abundance of giant robots and vehicles with 3++ Invuln Saves is crazy. It's pretty bad that I have a better chance of dealing damage to a Riptide with a Boy Blob hitting it with knives than I do with a Rocket Launcher designed for the purpose of taking down big things.

Which kinda just goes to my biggest gripe of volume of attacks/shots being more important to taking down anything than using weapons designed for those targets.

The invul problem used to be worst and GW is slowly scaling it back now. These days Invuls seem to exist more to cap how much AP.

Invuln span was because of the AP 'all or nothing' armour system.

Which actually may point to the AP system being the worst rule - not in and of itself, but the knock on effects basically wrecked entire editions and made an awful mess.

 
   
Made in us
Fresh-Faced New User




God, Virus grenades and whatever it was called when you could use it before the battle. I once had my orks completely gutted before I could even play. I gave up before my first turn. I think we just redeployed and tried again without him using it.

I am still salty about it...
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Cutting stuff up and bunging it back together in new and interesting ways.






Under the couch

 Just Tony wrote:

I totally agree that GW in recent editions has been an absolute gak show as far as clarity of rules, and had we been discussing some of those rules I would have capitulated. However, my response was about a ruleset that shockingly is written well enough that those vagarities seemed to have eluded it. It's part of the reason I decided to go back to that ruleset instead of staying current.

3rd edition did have its fair share of rules issues. I remember sending a list of rules queries to GW about 12 months or so in (back before the internet was widespread enough for us all to realise that answers from the 'Rulez Boyz' were actually completely useless) and it was about 5 pages (typed!) of questions.

Although, to be fair, a certain number of those questions were along the lines of 'You could do [thing] in 2nd edition. Where on earth do I find the rules for this now????'




 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: