Daemon Primarch Angron Apoc rules

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.

**Valkyrie**

TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
Blacksails wrote:
TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

That doesn't go together like you said. What I meant when I said it cannot be broken or weakened I meant against effects like the Vinicares shield breaker which break armor or other effects which weaken the saves.. Even if I didn't say that it in no way means that it can take that save against things it shouldn't be able to take the invul against.

You should make that clear then. Its very easy to interpret 'can never be broken or weakened' as ignoring destroyer weapon effects.

Lets compare him to a Warlord:
The warlord has 45 Hull points when adding the 6 Void shields. Each Void Shield is a Structure point and the Warlord has 27 HP without them.

This is wrong. Void shields are not structure points. They are ordinary hull points at AV12 that are removed for every glancing or penetrating hit. So it has 33 total hull points.

The warlord get's to roll for void shield repair for every Structure Point he has remaining and on a 5+ repairs one. This is the same as having 3 2+ to repair a whole SP (void shield) when full on SPs.

Again, this is wrong. You roll for each collapsed void shield, and on a 5+, the void shields regenerate. So no, its not as durable as you make it out to be.

Angron has 10 wounds at T9 with a 2+ Armor save, a 3+ invul and the ability to shrug off the 6 result on S: D on a 3+. He basically heals 1 wound per turn.

Which, is surprisingly comparable to the durability of the warlord when we dispel all the misinformation. The ability to regenerate wounds, have a 3++, ignore the worst parts of the D table, and T9 (roughly comparable to AV14 when you consider the 'to wound/to penetrate' values). Think of it this way too, a hierophant's shooting is significantly more dangerous to the warlord than it is to Angron. You have a 2+ to take against those S10 AP4 hits, whereas the warlord has no save.

The Warlord wins out incredibly heavily here with dramatically more durability. About 3-4 times more durable against everything due to sheer volume of HP and regen.

As above, we now know this to be conclusively false. The degree to which its false can be discussed at length using various weapon examples, but the combination of 2+/3++/4+ IWND and good toughness, compared to the sheer mass of HP on the warlord but no saves possible are at least comparable in durability. Throw enough D weapons at either and they'll go down in a turn or two each.

The Warlord has 2 volcano cannons which each have a S: D AP:1 10inch blast. The Warlord also has 2 Vulcan Mega Bolters which have between them roughly 36 S:7 AP:3 shots.

Sure, these are good weapons. They won't be winning the game single-handedly by any stretch, and consider also that you could bring four baneblade chassis with the same quantity of those guns (plus all the lascannons extra) for the same price, if not cheaper. They'd also have more HP total. So this argument doesn't really win you anything, unless you want to argue that Baneblades and their variants are overpowered.

Angron has 10 S:10 AP:2 hits with melta when in melee. He also has instant death which only applies in a few situations when the other model doesn't have EW.

Which is very strong, but not game breaking on its own, which is fine. Trades ranged ability for close in ability. Pretty much the opposite of the warlord. Balance!

The Warlord wins out very heavily here as well.

No, not really, no. If the two were standing on opposite sides of the board with no cover and no other units, sure. But that's not how you balance anything. The same thing applies to every other unit in 40k. Not having a shooting attack doesn't mean the unit is awful. Quite the opposite in many cases.

There boom. The Warlord is about 4 times more effective with all of these factors and Angron army buffs thrown in.

As above, no it isn't. One is a ranged beast, the other a close combat beast. We're also forgetting the size differences here. The warlord would be the single largest model on the board. I'm picturing Angron to be smaller than the hierophant, which means cover saves are possible, or even outright LOS blockage depending on terrain/units. These factors need to be considered when balancing.

Trying to be nice also. Damn dude not very friendly are you? Regardless we have different views ( mine's right of course )
No shooting means you possibly (most likely) lose half your points so yeah...

I've been perfectly nice. You've been dismissing everyone's points with no second thought and talking down to most people. You've also shown your true colours in other threads where you resort to name calling or outright insults.

Once more, not having a shooting attack doesn't make the unit balanced. Stop saying this, its patently false. Look at every unit in 40k. Are the one-dimensional units never taken because they can only do one thing well? Absolutely not, its quite the opposite. Units that are 100% geared towards assault are taken over ones with a weird mixture.

As others have said, its a false flaw; its something you point out and say 'look! Balance!'.

Oh, and with the warlord comparison, we're also completely dismissing the massive army wide buffs your guy brings, easily worth several hundred points all things considered.

Void Shields are AV 13 Structure points and they worked the way I mentioned in the edition before the stupid new Apoc system. In regards to everything but the unit changes and S: D buff we play by the edition before. Void Shields only being HP is so stupid from a fluff perspective, so we just ignored that stupid gak. The new Apoc rules are pretty new, and not well liked, so why would you assume we instantly start using them?
The Warlord is dramatically more powerful against everything from GC's and titans to infantry. The Warlord will be dealing at the very least 4 times the number of wounds with those massive S: D templates alone.
I never said it made it balanced....It makes for a leviathan weakness in any apoc game with the massive boards and you can't seem to understand that. A false flaw? In this edition and the size of Apoc boards not at all.
The warlord is dramatically more effective at everything and this isn't counting the hordes of tech priests the warlord has to repair it every single turn.
I actually keep saying it's hilariously overpriced at this point with the Manta, Phantom Titan, and Warlord running around at the same price. It's unbalanced but not in the way you say it is....
The I'm not your bro comment? And you say you've been perfectly nice? That hurts .

Well there's your problem then, you need to actually learn the rules before you start making your own up. Void Shields were, and still are, AV12 shields that have nothing to do with Structure/Hull Points. Learn the rules properly, then present your own creations instead of doing it now and being rude to others who criticise your idea with incorrect judgements and aggressive statements.

Oh, and how about you present yourself with a bit more maturity. Your attitude and language used is almost certainly a violation of Rule 1.

**Blacksails**

TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

Void Shields are AV 13 Structure points in the edition before the stupid new Apoc system. In regards to everything but the unit changes and S: D buff we play by the edition before. Void Shields only being HP is so stupid from a fluff perspective, so we just ignored that stupid gak. The new Apoc rules are pretty new, and not well liked, so why would you assume we instantly start using them?
The Warlord is dramatically more powerful against everything from GC's and titans to infantry. The Warlord will be dealing at the very least 4 times the number of wounds with those massive S: D templates alone.
I never said it made it balanced....It makes for a leviathan weakness in any apoc game with the massive boards and you can't seem to understand that. A false flaw? In this edition and the size of Apoc boards not at all.
The warlord is dramatically more effective at everything and this isn't counting the hordes of tech priests the warlord has to repair it every single turn.
I actually keep saying it's hilariously overpriced at this point with the Manta, Phantom Titan, and Warlord running around at the same price. It's unbalanced but not in the way you say it is....

Again, no. Void shields have always been AV12, and not structure points. Go read the rules again, its spelled out very clearly.

Also, how was I supposed to know you play by the old edition? I'm fairly positive most people would assume the same, its a pretty normal assumption to make. For the next time, it would be a good idea to clarify that at the start of your post.

However, it doesn't change the fact that void shields have remained unchanged.

You continue to claim the warlord lays waste to everything. Four shadowswords put out equivalent firepower for 500pts less and a few extra hull points to boot. Not to mention a slew of lascannons to help strip void shields. The warlord is good, but not the end all be all. I could take 5 shadowswords for a few points less, and have more volcano shots (arguably one of the better weapons for apoc) and a bunch of lascannons, and more AV14 hull points to eat through. Not to mention more targets to deal with and the advantages of some formations.

You're also ignoring a point I made earlier about how you could easily hide in assault for a turn against a suitable large unit, and then consolidate in the opponents turn, move in yours, and assault again, entirely ignoring the shooting phase.

Talking about a horde of techpriests behind it is now devising a scenario explictly designed to make the warlord appear better. It can happen, I guess, but any template you shoot can scatter enough to hit them in the back too. Anyways, I won't discuss all these 'what-ifs' that are designed to make the warlord appear better than it is in an attempt to make yours seem more balanced.

Lets not forget that the warlord's rules are now 6 years and an edition old. The hierophant changed quite a bit, and was overall nerfed but dropped in points a little.

Anyways, I've said my part and corrected you on several rules misconceptions. You won't agree he's overpowered, I can see that. At least maybe you'll think about it and understand what we're saying.

He's durable.
He buffs the whole army, a lot.
He's a monster in CC.

The only thing he's missing is a shooting attack. That's it. Otherwise, he lacks any significant flaw that any other GC or titan has.

**TheSaintofKilllers**

Blacksails wrote:
TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

Void Shields are AV 13 Structure points in the edition before the stupid new Apoc system. In regards to everything but the unit changes and S: D buff we play by the edition before. Void Shields only being HP is so stupid from a fluff perspective, so we just ignored that stupid gak. The new Apoc rules are pretty new, and not well liked, so why would you assume we instantly start using them?
The Warlord is dramatically more powerful against everything from GC's and titans to infantry. The Warlord will be dealing at the very least 4 times the number of wounds with those massive S: D templates alone.
I never said it made it balanced....It makes for a leviathan weakness in any apoc game with the massive boards and you can't seem to understand that. A false flaw? In this edition and the size of Apoc boards not at all.
The warlord is dramatically more effective at everything and this isn't counting the hordes of tech priests the warlord has to repair it every single turn.
I actually keep saying it's hilariously overpriced at this point with the Manta, Phantom Titan, and Warlord running around at the same price. It's unbalanced but not in the way you say it is....

Again, no. Void shields have always been AV12, and not structure points. Go read the rules again, its spelled out very clearly.

Also, how was I supposed to know you play by the old edition? I'm fairly positive most people would assume the same, its a pretty normal assumption to make. For the next time, it would be a good idea to clarify that at the start of your post.

However, it doesn't change the fact that void shields have remained unchanged.

You continue to claim the warlord lays waste to everything. Four shadowswords put out equivalent firepower for 500pts less and a few extra hull points to boot. Not to mention a slew of lascannons to help strip void shields. The warlord is good, but not the end all be all. I could take 5 shadowswords for a few points less, and have more volcano shots (arguably one of the better weapons for apoc) and a bunch of lascannons, and more AV14 hull points to eat through. Not to mention more targets to deal with and the advantages of some formations.

You're also ignoring a point I made earlier about how you could easily hide in assault for a turn against a suitable large unit, and then consolidate in the opponents turn, move in yours, and assault again, entirely ignoring the shooting phase.

Talking about a horde of techpriests behind it is now devising a scenario explictly designed to make the warlord appear better. It can happen, I guess, but any template you shoot can scatter enough to hit them in the back too. Anyways, I won't discuss all these 'what-ifs' that are designed to make the warlord appear better than it is in an attempt to make yours seem more balanced.

Lets not forget that the warlord's rules are now 6 years and an edition old. The hierophant changed quite a bit, and was overall nerfed but dropped in points a little.

Anyways, I've said my part and corrected you on several rules misconceptions. You won't agree he's overpowered, I can see that. At least maybe you'll think about it and understand what we're saying.

He's durable.
He buffs the whole army, a lot.
He's a monster in CC.

The only thing he's missing is a shooting attack. That's it. Otherwise, he lacks any significant flaw that any other GC or titan has.

In an Apoc game a friend told me they were AV13 Structure Points.
Regardless the Warlord is still dramatically more durable, with what equates to 33 wounds, 6 which heal, and a large quantity of HP healed each turn with Tech Priests.
Several? First time for anything and everything. That said I'm surprised. Void Shields being HP? That's like the Swarmlord having a tactical marine statline. The titan's actual armor is just supposed to be the icing on the cake.
He buffs the army by the general equivalent of 500 points. That's not a lot in an Apoc setting.
Scenario? I haven't ever faced a Warlord that didn't have quite literally 50 Tech Priests. They seem free when they equate to having 3 warlords with that one now having Wolverine regeneration.
Angron stll has significantly less destructive capability. due to lacking something as silly powerful as a S: D 10 inch blast. And the Warlord has 2 of those.
As to you point, he would have to cross 70 inches in terrain and the model is 9 inches tall. So, you can see how that works out.
Shadowswords? The Warlord is more durable than those 4 shadowswords if they're scrunched together. I've always seen a Warlord eat it's points cost in stuff like shadowswords without ever being disabled.

**Savageconvoy**

So in other words you still think it's perfectly fine when nobody else thinks it is not fine and you're justification is comparing it to the warlord again? You also don't seem to understand how powerful pinpoint deepstrike is for your army. How many Warp Talons would fit into an apocalypse game? Enough to hit a majority of enemy units with blind turn 2? That would buy a good amount of time for insane amounts of assault vehicles to close distance.

This is exactly like that Tombstalker thread all over again. I feel like I should have taken bets when I first saw this thread.

Again I have to ask the reason in posting this.
-You're the only who is okay with the unit
-nobody else posting in either thread would like to use a unit like that or play against it.
-You take criticism slightly better than Cold War era KGB

Since you're not really sharing an idea that people would consider balanced, you seem far more interested in just posting to start disagreements. Especially considering how close the rules for this are to the TombStalker thread.

**TheSaintofKilllers**

Savageconvoy wrote:
So in other words you still think it's perfectly fine when nobody else thinks it is not fine and you're justification is comparing it to the warlord again? You also don't seem to understand how powerful pinpoint deepstrike is for your army. How many Warp Talons would fit into an apocalypse game? Enough to hit a majority of enemy units with blind turn 2? That would buy a good amount of time for insane amounts of assault vehicles to close distance.

This is exactly like that Tombstalker thread all over again. I feel like I should have taken bets when I first saw this thread.

Again I have to ask the reason in posting this.
-You're the only who is okay with the unit
-nobody else posting in either thread would like to use a unit like that or play against it.
-You take criticism slightly better than Cold War era KGB

Since you're not really sharing an idea that people would consider balanced, you seem far more interested in just posting to start disagreements. Especially considering how close the rules for this are to the TombStalker thread.

Tombstalker was about 6 times better and only twice as expensive And even then an existing unit the Imperator was better even if the imperator was silly undercosted.
But this? In an Apoc setting this is perfectly fine. It can compete at least so it's not useless, and it's not hilariously undercosted.
I'll guess I'll make the points cost 2750. At this point the cost is essentially 3 hierophants.

**Blacksails**

TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

In an Apoc game a friend told me they were AV13 Structure Points.
Regardless the Warlord is still dramatically more durable, with what equates to 33 wounds, 6 which heal, and a large quantity of HP healed each turn with Tech Priests.
Several? First time for anything and everything. That said I'm surprised. Void Shields being HP? That's like the Swarmlord having a tactical marine statline. The titan's actual armor is just supposed to be the icing on the cake.
He buffs the army by the general equivalent of 500 points. That's not a lot in an Apoc setting.
Scenario? I haven't ever faced a Warlord that didn't have quite literally 50 Tech Priests. They seem free when they equate to having 3 warlords with that one now having Wolverine regeneration.
Angron stll has significantly less destructive capability. due to lacking something as silly powerful as a S: D 10 inch blast. And the Warlord has 2 of those.
As to you point, he would have to cross 70 inches in terrain and the model is 9 inches tall. So, you can see how that works out.
Shadowswords? The Warlord is more durable than those 4 shadowswords if they're scrunched together. I've always seen a Warlord eat it's points cost in stuff like shadowswords without ever being disabled.

So...you design rules and justify them by going off 'my friend told me this'? You absolutely need to have a better understanding of the rules to participate intelligently in a discussion like this.

Its not dramatically more durable. I've explained this to you and you don't refute it in any way; you simply dismiss it with a handwave and no actual analysis. This is exactly what I'm talking about.

Look, your guy can take a 2+ save against a Hierophant shooting attack. The warlord can't. Destroyer weapons will absolutely demolish both units anyways, but that's a point about destroyer weapons, not the units themselves.

He buffs the army a lot. Its largely irrelevant by how many points, as the size of apoc games vary so much that the relevant amount of buffing changes wildly each game. On top of that, its fairly easy to bring a high number of units affected by those rules, skewing the balance even more. Its just quite simply too much. Tone it down.

Angron has less destructive capability at range, but more in combat. We've been over this.

A horde of 50 tech-priests behind a warlord? Well, in that case, I'd see no point in even playing apoc with your friends. Probably one of the stupidest things I've heard in a game, and game breakingly hilarious. In that case, there's obviously no discussing how powerful a warlord is, because your friends have found a way to make it broken.

I'm obviously working under a normal assumption that I wouldn't be playing against people set on actually min-maxing their apoc games with a horde of tech priests.

Anyways, back to normal logical land.

Point is, the warlord's shooting abilities aren't any better than an equivalent number of shadowswords. And the shadowswords can spread out. Not overly hard to do.

Alrighty, so the model is 9 inches tall, and you have to cross a minimum of 70"? Now, I'm no mathologist or anything, but that's like 6 feet between armies. Frankly, I'm having a hard time seeing anything get into close combat without the use of deepstriking or outflanking. Which is not a problem with Angron, but a problem with how you play apoc.

I don't know what to tell you. This thing is not balanced (in a bad way), but the way you play apoc and the people you play with skew normal balance considerations so far out to left field its not worth discussing anymore.

I'll just say that you take criticism poorly, don't discuss anything well, never provide any real backing for your claims, and play such a bizarrely skewed version of apoc that it doesn't matter what we tell you.

I'd tell you to have fun with apoc, but I'd have a hard time being convinced to even unpack my minis knowing the game was going down like that.

Set up gunline of titans and shadowswords. Roll dice. Remove enemy models by handful. Win game.

Thrilling.

**Valkyrie**

Well said Blacksails. Exalted.

**TheSaintofKilllers**

I've constantly refuted it. Do you know what refute means? It's the same as saying naw man, that's wrong and here's why. Which is what I've been doing. You've just been saying it's not dramatically more durable without ever giving reasons. And yes the Warlord is more durable with it's 33 friggin wounds and sick regen.
And if mine is more durable? Mine has dramatically less destructive capability so it evens out.
Now it has a cost very similar to 3 hierophants.
If something by the rules skews normal balance, and all these units are balanced, and the game still plays normally but one unit becoming a focus....there is no such thing as normal balance and it doesn't mean gak. At least the definition you have.
It's simply adapting to a meta with friendly dudes wit hilarious lists. I guarantee you not one of them will have issues with this. Aparrently that's an alien concept to you.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Valkyrie wrote:
Well said Blacksails. Exalted.

He apparently doesn't know what refute means......
I've constantly given reasons and arguments which show blatantly the Warlord is more durable/ more destructive power.

**Blacksails**

TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
I've constantly refuted it. Do you know what refute means? It's the same as saying naw man, that's wrong and here's why. Which is what I've been doing. You've just been saying it's not dramatically more durable without ever giving reasons. And yes the Warlord is more durable with it's 33 friggin wounds and sick regen.
And if mine is more durable? Mine has dramatically less destructive capability so it evens out.
Now it has a cost very similar to 3 hierophants.

Yup, I'm done here. Thanks for proving my point.

Also, thanks Valkyrie. I tried, hopefully any other readers will learn a thing or two about how not to make a unit and respond to criticism.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

He apparently doesn't know what refute means......
I've constantly given reasons and arguments which show blatantly the Warlord is more durable/ more destructive power.

Ah, too funny!

**TheSaintofKilllers**

Blacksails wrote:
TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
I've constantly refuted it. Do you know what refute means? It's the same as saying naw man, that's wrong and here's why. Which is what I've been doing. You've just been saying it's not dramatically more durable without ever giving reasons. And yes the Warlord is more durable with it's 33 friggin wounds and sick regen.
And if mine is more durable? Mine has dramatically less destructive capability so it evens out.
Now it has a cost very similar to 3 hierophants.

Yup, I'm done here. Thanks for proving my point.

Also, thanks Valkyrie. I tried, hopefully any other readers will learn a thing or two about how not to make a unit and respond to criticism.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

He apparently doesn't know what refute means......
I've constantly given reasons and arguments which show blatantly the Warlord is more durable/ more destructive power.

Ah, too funny!

I also have to comment on your love of spaces.

How not to respond to criticism? This is currently twice the points cost it was before, and lacks the FNP. That's proper responsiveness.
What are you even doing here really? Having a melee army in Apoc is suicidal with the enemy having his own melee units and a silly durable gunline of titans and tanks. That's factual.
You never had a point with this thing costing the same as 3 friggin hierophants.

That's the textbook definition of refute

.
This is far too funny

.

**ImotekhTheStormlord**

TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

I also have to comment on your love of spaces.

Getting petty are we?

How not to respond to criticism? This is currently twice the points cost it was before, and lacks the FNP. That's proper responsiveness.
What are you even doing here really? Having a melee army in Apoc is suicidal with the enemy having his own melee units and a silly durable gunline of titans and tanks. That's factual.

If the very nature of the army you are trying to construct is suicidal, then why waste time designing it? Do you enjoy being tabled?

You never had a point with this thing costing the same as 3 friggin hierophants.
That's the textbook definition of refute .
This is far too funny .

re·fute
riˈfyo͞ot/
verb
1.
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
Your claim that your altering of the point cost somehow refutes his argument is ludicrous. His argument was based on the nature of your character. All you did was arbitrarily hike the points.

**TheSaintofKilllers**

ImotekhTheStormlord wrote:
TheSaintofKilllers wrote:

I also have to comment on your love of spaces.

Getting petty are we?

How not to respond to criticism? This is currently twice the points cost it was before, and lacks the FNP. That's proper responsiveness.
What are you even doing here really? Having a melee army in Apoc is suicidal with the enemy having his own melee units and a silly durable gunline of titans and tanks. That's factual.

If the very nature of the army you are trying to construct is suicidal, then why waste time designing it? Do you enjoy being tabled?

You never had a point with this thing costing the same as 3 friggin hierophants.
That's the textbook definition of refute .
This is far too funny .

re·fute
riˈfyo͞ot/
verb
1.
prove (a statement or theory) to be wrong or false; disprove.
Your claim that your altering of the point cost somehow refutes his argument is ludicrous. His argument was based on the nature of your character. All you did was arbitrarily hike the points.

I'm claiming that my arguments for the warlords durability (33 wounds, ease of repair, regenerating void shields) and the warlord having 2 friggin S: D 10inch blasts refutes his arguments.
When in comes down to stats it's mostly factual. Against small arms with the 2+ save, Angron and the warlord are even. In an Apoc setting, which is the realistic setting, The warlord is more durable due to sheer mass of wounds.
Because with an understanding that equal destructive capability between melee and guns isn't really equal due to distances, the melee unit has to be cheaper. It came to that point with me giving feedback any credence with people apparently not aware of this, the unit just became gak.
Where did you get that from?

**cincydooley**

So is this for your local middle school club league? Or just an exercise in trying to write rules?

**TheSaintofKilllers**

cincydooley wrote:
So is this for your local middle school club league? Or just an exercise in trying to write rules?

I'm a freshman in college. What kind of strange 14 year old savant even knows what refute means? Or how to defend his arguments?
What middle school of 1800 kids even has enough people who play to start a 40k club?
All good questions
Regardless this was meant as a compliment to the Magnus rules I wrote awhile back.

**cincydooley**

Oh I'm sorry. I just assumed based on the arguments you presented you were in one of those school boy clubs in England. I missed the US flag.

I guess my question was whether or not you actually intended to play with the rules, or were just doing it as a mental exercise?

As an aside, fluff wise it doesn't make a whole ton of sense for Angron to buff his own allies; most of the fluff makes it pretty clear that Angron is an indiscriminate killer of friend and foe alike.

Also, not that I want to really get into it, but since you brought it up, refute is like, an 8th grade vocabulary word taught when kids start to learn how to write argumentative papers. So most 14 year olds should know it.

**TheSaintofKilllers**

cincydooley wrote:
Oh I'm sorry. I just assumed based on the arguments you presented you were in one of those school boy clubs in England. I missed the US flag.

I guess my question was whether or not you actually intended to play with the rules, or were just doing it as a mental exercise?

As an aside, fluff wise it doesn't make a whole ton of sense for Angron to buff his own allies; most of the fluff makes it pretty clear that Angron is an indiscriminate killer of friend and foe alike.

Also, not that I want to really get into it, but since you brought it up, refute is like, an 8th grade vocabulary word taught when kids start to learn how to write argumentative papers. So most 14 year olds should know it.

You're being friendly but for future reference I absolutely hate the stereotypical UK citizen, and nearly everything about their country.
Keep that in mind.
At this point where at stands at twice the points cost I would never use this because it's horrible. Before? Maybe.

**ALEXisAWESOME**

TheSaintofKilllers wrote:
cincydooley wrote:
So is this for your local middle school club league? Or just an exercise in trying to write rules?

I'm a freshman in college. What kind of strange 14 year old savant even knows what refute means? Or how to defend his arguments?
What middle school of 1800 kids even has enough people who play to start a 40k club?
All good questions
Regardless this was meant as a compliment to the Magnus rules I wrote awhile back.

I'm 14, I know what refute means and my school has a 40k club (1k people). I know how to defend my augments (Check out my 'kicked out over nothing' thread). So I don't understand where this slant came from.

Back to the rules, you shouldn't compare everything to a warlord titian or Heroduel because this isn't starcraft. Not everything has a direct comparison, other wise warhammer would be a distinctly boring game.