Switch Theme:

Might there be no ninth edition?  [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 is
Courageous Beastmaster




Iceland

I expect a 8.1 release which some will probably consider 8.5 A new rulebook consolidating the ruleset and a new box set to replace the Dark Imperium after it has sold enough.

I also imagine that depending on how certain rules play out in Kill Team, AoS, and Apocalypse that they might be incorporated somehow into the core 40k ruleset.

Cypher | Craftworlds | Drukhari | Dark Angels | Necrons | Emperor's Children(30k/40k) | Tyranids | Orks | Death Guard

Daughters of Khaine | Blades of Khorne | Stormcast Eternals | Flesh-Eater Courts
 
   
Made in us
Horrific Hive Tyrant




Tampa, FL

I wouldn't mind a living rulesset if the core rules were worth a gak in the first place. But IMHO 40k's base rules, while certainly better than 7th, are still pretty awful. They didn't change enough around. I wouldn't want to see a move away from editions until they actually had a good base set of rules to work from (so never, because this is GW)

- Wayne
Formerly WayneTheGame 
   
Made in us
Steadfast Grey Hunter




Somerdale, NJ, USA

 Eldarsif wrote:
I expect a 8.1 release which some will probably consider 8.5 A new rulebook consolidating the ruleset and a new box set to replace the Dark Imperium after it has sold enough.

I also imagine that depending on how certain rules play out in Kill Team, AoS, and Apocalypse that they might be incorporated somehow into the core 40k ruleset.


I really wish they would do a consolidation rulebook. It's hard to keep up with what is the current actual rules sometimes...

This 8-page ruleset has ballooned into a surprising mess of what is valid.

I'd even be happy with an official GW "living ruleset list" telling us exactly what is truly the current ruleset and which books we should be using.

"The only problem with your genepool is that there wasn't a lifeguard on duty to prevent you from swimming."

"You either die a Morty, or you live long enough to see yourself become a Rick."

- 8k /// - 5k /// - 3k /// - 4k /// - 6k /// - 2k (take out the actual Genestealers, only 1.1k) 
   
Made in gb
Princeps of the Emperor's Titan!






I reckon we'll get a period of 'compendium rulebooks'. That's more or less how AoS' second version worked out.

But if we do get a full on overhaul? I'm hoping it's to incorporate the Apocalypse turn structure - with or without the addition of unit orders.


Fed up of Scalpers? But still want your Exclusives?Why not join us?

 
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






 ArcaneHorror wrote:
At least one of the people working at my local GW seems to believe that the company is moving away from the edition-based way of developing the game over time, and instead will be shifting more towards smaller, periodic updates. Does anyone else believe that this might be the case?


this can be summed up with red shirts (GW employees) say the darnedest things.

I remember the 7th to 8th they released the teaser of not using initiative or initiative mattering less. A red shirt i asked if they knew anythign insisted that a GW rules writer had told him that it meant you would fight first if you charged (he got that right) but that subsequent combats would in fact use the initiative stat (this was not right). It is possible somebody playtested that and went with something else but idk.

In a way 4th to 5th to 6th to 7th was a wort of evolution of the same core rules. They tweeked them and added new mechanics but the overall ruleset was about the same.


10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in it
Longtime Dakkanaut




If there ever will be a change of edition, it will be to get away from the horrible canonical turn structure. It is something that we are seeing in all the new 40K related games. They are testing the waters for new turn structures.
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






Spoletta wrote:
If there ever will be a change of edition, it will be to get away from the horrible canonical turn structure. It is something that we are seeing in all the new 40K related games. They are testing the waters for new turn structures.


your words to GW ears... one of the biggest annoyances I have always had in 40k is this idea that one side fully activates before the other. liek they just did not shoot back standing there watchign the opposing force move towards them, shoot and then charge only bothering to overwatch.

I think it should be like the alternate deployment. you take turns moving until oen side has moved all units then the opponent keeps moving till done, ditto shooting, and assaults (oen who did the assaultign strikes first and go from there.

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




If we assume a new edition to follow the 3rd through 7th and AOS 1 - 2.0 standard, then a new edition is completely possible, and reasonable as soon as next year, and only really represents a new core rule set and probably a boxed starter game.

It wouldn't have any large changes, as these would invalidate all of the existing publications, and up until now 8th is the only edition to necessitate it invalidating all of its predecessors supplements.

Its much more reasonable to expect an edition change which retains the turn structure, core wound based mechanics, core morale mechanics, and the current stats for weapons and models.

More likely are changes to the rules for terrain, movement, target selection, casualty removal, charging and assault phase movement and targeting, which can all experience reasonable to dramatic change without invalidating more than a handful of entries in the existing supplements.
These are the traditional things to see change during a conservative edition change.
   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




Spoletta wrote:
I don't know anyone, not even the most competitive kind of players, who ever though about buying all the codici. Yours is more than enough.

Lots of people used to, especially early on, and definitely pre-internet. It was the only way to find out what other armies rules were. Then suddenly GW army books doubled in price and army book sales went down, like that was a correlation or something.




But OP-wise, there will be a new edition. I doubt it will be all that far in the future either, based on past trends (both 7th and AoS), what GW calls it would be irrelevant. But casually trawling through past financial reports show definitively that the 'new edition spike' is very real and important to their profit margin. Based on past editions, changes can be pretty minimal or fairly large, as long as they don't touch the profiles or invalidate units. That's always a big one (2nd->3rd, 6th->8th, Fantasy 8th->AoS), and can only be done rarely.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/12 13:37:49


Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in gb
Fixture of Dakka




 G00fySmiley wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
If there ever will be a change of edition, it will be to get away from the horrible canonical turn structure. It is something that we are seeing in all the new 40K related games. They are testing the waters for new turn structures.


your words to GW ears... one of the biggest annoyances I have always had in 40k is this idea that one side fully activates before the other. liek they just did not shoot back standing there watchign the opposing force move towards them, shoot and then charge only bothering to overwatch.

I think it should be like the alternate deployment. you take turns moving until oen side has moved all units then the opponent keeps moving till done, ditto shooting, and assaults (oen who did the assaultign strikes first and go from there.

That's equally nonsensical. Why would you just stand around watching your enemy move to cover and not do anything?

tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam  
   
Made in us
VF-1S Valkyrie Squadron Commander





Mississippi

Snugiraffe wrote:
 Overread wrote:

This method has the bonus that GW doesn't have a landmark single launch where they then have to spend the best part of 2 years updating all the codex at once. Instead they can just roll out the new rule book with all the previous amendments in it and some new additions; whilst not making as big a fan-fare, but at the same time also able to keep old codex around and update slower. Simply making it into one long series of rolling updates on the core rules and codex over time.


I have this childish, utopian dream of GW for once sitting down and writing ALL of the codices for 40k AT THE SAME TIME! You know, so that the various faction abilities and special rules can all be compared with each other and tested properly instead of throwing them out there and simply adding new factions/abilities that are just plain better than what already exists.


What, like they did with the INDEXES?

It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Dive-Bombin' Fighta-Bomba Pilot






pm713 wrote:
 G00fySmiley wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
If there ever will be a change of edition, it will be to get away from the horrible canonical turn structure. It is something that we are seeing in all the new 40K related games. They are testing the waters for new turn structures.


your words to GW ears... one of the biggest annoyances I have always had in 40k is this idea that one side fully activates before the other. liek they just did not shoot back standing there watchign the opposing force move towards them, shoot and then charge only bothering to overwatch.

I think it should be like the alternate deployment. you take turns moving until oen side has moved all units then the opponent keeps moving till done, ditto shooting, and assaults (oen who did the assaultign strikes first and go from there.

That's equally nonsensical. Why would you just stand around watching your enemy move to cover and not do anything?


to an extent that is true, but if its movement and the order is to run to ___ position for cover while shooting is going on around they might not notice or go ahead and fire on the other untit that is not firing at them. or more realistically covering fire is being provided but its mostly to force the other unit to maintain cover.

Though I guess that may break down with orks and such but still better than the wait out a full turn before acting.

If we went down the firelines.coverage thing we woudl end up at Infinity which, while fun, would not work at 40k scale.

10000 points 7000
6000
5000
5000
2000
 
   
Made in us
Wing Commander





GW is very market savy. That being said, all major games and hobbies retailers are moving towards a faster and more profitable style of content delivery.

Dynamic living rulesets allow GW at basically zero cost, to create new rule sets that require purchase in order to play. They've been testing the waters with 8th in the form of White Dwarf rule sets. Once they say people would pay 20+ dollars for a magazine, they realized the market was ready.

This assertion is also supported by the fact that their "digital releases" are not updated periodically. You are unable to purchase a fully updated codex from GW. You are however, able to buy the 10-20 books, updates, and point change compilations.

My assertion is that GW will not make a 9th, as it would defeat their style of marketing.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




Spoletta wrote:
Breton wrote:
They make more money from the books than the models. Lots of players who have been around might go an entire edition without buying a model if they really don't want to. They'll buy several books.


I find this quite hard to believe. Do you have any official number on this?


He doesn't because it's nonsense. The tac marine kit alone (intercessors/scouts in the modern day) makes more money than all their books put together.

Also it's mostly the opposite anyway. Players tend to buy models and either pirate or crowdsource books.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 FezzikDaBullgryn wrote:
GW is very market savy. That being said, all major games and hobbies retailers are moving towards a faster and more profitable style of content delivery.

Dynamic living rulesets allow GW at basically zero cost, to create new rule sets that require purchase in order to play. They've been testing the waters with 8th in the form of White Dwarf rule sets. Once they say people would pay 20+ dollars for a magazine, they realized the market was ready.

This assertion is also supported by the fact that their "digital releases" are not updated periodically. You are unable to purchase a fully updated codex from GW. You are however, able to buy the 10-20 books, updates, and point change compilations.

My assertion is that GW will not make a 9th, as it would defeat their style of marketing.


Market savy is not a term I would really apply to GW, not even in the 'New GW' era. They weren't even considering make Sisters of Battle until their first ever(?) Community survey had 100000 people ask for them.

GW are just recently to the point where they're not totally market agnostic.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Stormonu wrote:
Snugiraffe wrote:
 Overread wrote:

This method has the bonus that GW doesn't have a landmark single launch where they then have to spend the best part of 2 years updating all the codex at once. Instead they can just roll out the new rule book with all the previous amendments in it and some new additions; whilst not making as big a fan-fare, but at the same time also able to keep old codex around and update slower. Simply making it into one long series of rolling updates on the core rules and codex over time.


I have this childish, utopian dream of GW for once sitting down and writing ALL of the codices for 40k AT THE SAME TIME! You know, so that the various faction abilities and special rules can all be compared with each other and tested properly instead of throwing them out there and simply adding new factions/abilities that are just plain better than what already exists.


What, like they did with the INDEXES?


Which hilariously disproved the 'make it all at once and balanced' idea. Index GuillyRavens is STILL the strongest list relative to its competition we've seen in 8th.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/07/12 22:32:15


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





 G00fySmiley wrote:
Spoletta wrote:
If there ever will be a change of edition, it will be to get away from the horrible canonical turn structure. It is something that we are seeing in all the new 40K related games. They are testing the waters for new turn structures.


your words to GW ears... one of the biggest annoyances I have always had in 40k is this idea that one side fully activates before the other. liek they just did not shoot back standing there watchign the opposing force move towards them, shoot and then charge only bothering to overwatch.

I think it should be like the alternate deployment. you take turns moving until oen side has moved all units then the opponent keeps moving till done, ditto shooting, and assaults (oen who did the assaultign strikes first and go from there.


I don't mind the one player activates all at once, but I think Casualties/resolutions should be removed at the end of a full turn - i.e. Player A moves, Psych's, Shoots, Fights, Player B Moves, Psych's, Shoots, Fights, Player A and Player B resolve casualties. The problem isn't that Player A does it all first, its that Player A does it all, and that reduces how much Player B can do. There will always be some point where one player gets to act more than the other. Even if we take turns, the Pure infantry Guard Player is going to have a lot more units left to activate after the Pure Knight Player is done.

The Perfect World to balance turn order is - Player A draws a map of the game board, and assigns movement orders to his units. Player B draws a map of the game board, and assigns movement orders to his units - both players do this blind without knowing what the other player does. Resolve Movement. Then you chose psychic actions in the same secret ballot blind process, and resolve. and so on. The time this would involve is prohibitive.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in nl
Veteran Inquisitorial Tyranid Xenokiller






your mind

I predict a 41st Age community rules set that will replace most casual 40k based wargaming.

People may or may not use GW models.
Might read the fiction.
Likely played the video games.

But, the rules are bad, and in need of so much house ruling a reskinned 2nd ed is the only best answer.

   
Made in us
Stealthy Warhound Titan Princeps




Nonsense. With very rare exceptions, community attempts to even hold onto a rule set fail. (The exception being Blood bowl)

Actual Replacement? Not a chance. That starts to fail in week 2, when personalities emerge and desires and pet armies diverge.

Efficiency is the highest virtue. 
   
Made in us
Trustworthy Shas'vre





Cobleskill

heh.
Kill Team is 9th
Apoc is 10th

'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!' 
   
Made in us
Committed Chaos Cult Marine






It's hard to say. I mean, if you think about it, GW never even denotes edition numbers on the cover of their books already. So anything is possible.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 jeff white wrote:
I predict a 41st Age community rules set that will replace most casual 40k based wargaming.

People may or may not use GW models.
Might read the fiction.
Likely played the video games.

But, the rules are bad, and in need of so much house ruling a reskinned 2nd ed is the only best answer.


I dunno, a lot of people say this. But, I really like 8th edition. It's the most balanced edition I've played in and so far we're two years into it and the fire and passion in my local area still hasn't died down. Lots of games going on every weekend and sales are up.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/07/15 06:39:33


 
   
Made in gb
Wicked Canoptek Wraith




Snugiraffe wrote:
 Overread wrote:

This method has the bonus that GW doesn't have a landmark single launch where they then have to spend the best part of 2 years updating all the codex at once. Instead they can just roll out the new rule book with all the previous amendments in it and some new additions; whilst not making as big a fan-fare, but at the same time also able to keep old codex around and update slower. Simply making it into one long series of rolling updates on the core rules and codex over time.


I have this childish, utopian dream of GW for once sitting down and writing ALL of the codices for 40k AT THE SAME TIME! You know, so that the various faction abilities and special rules can all be compared with each other and tested properly instead of throwing them out there and simply adding new factions/abilities that are just plain better than what already exists.


They did that at the release of 8th with the Index system.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




The problem was the indexes were written as a bare bones transition to hold over before GW gave everyone a codex with a lot more thing to balance and kinks to work out. I know many players don't want to change over to an all electronic system, (myself included) but that in my opinion is the only way to make a living rule set truly viable.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka





Apocalypse is 9th.

"'players must agree how they are going to select their armies, and if any restrictions apply to the number and type of models they can use."

This is an actual rule in the actual rulebook. Quit whining about how you can imagine someone's army touching you in a bad place and play by the actual rules.


Freelance Ontologist

When people ask, "What's the point in understanding everything?" they've just disqualified themselves from using questions and should disappear in a puff of paradox. But they don't understand and just continue existing, which are also their only two strategies for life. 
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





HoundsofDemos wrote:
The problem was the indexes were written as a bare bones transition to hold over before GW gave everyone a codex with a lot more thing to balance and kinks to work out. I know many players don't want to change over to an all electronic system, (myself included) but that in my opinion is the only way to make a living rule set truly viable.


Even GW doesn't want to go to an all electronic system. If they're smart, they figure out how to give hardcopy owners a coupon for a free e-book of anything they own a hardcopy of. They want you to have both. And they don't want a living ruleset. There's not a doubt in my mind they want to set out an entire system, let it mature, and let someone else take over the job and watch human nature demand they fix what isn't broke, break what isn't fixed, and do it the way they think it should be done. Look at the history of Grenades. That's the story of 40K. They just don't know what to do with grenades. Are they a weapon you can attack with? Something that provides an in-game benefit/rule during assaults? Decorative but not functional beyond already being included in the "representation" of shooting the bolters? There are too many things they keep trying to rework to get just right for that.

Apocalypse is 9th.

And No, Apocalypse, an expansion like Cities of Death, KillTeam/Warbands, and the like is not 9th Edition.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Breton wrote:
HoundsofDemos wrote:
The problem was the indexes were written as a bare bones transition to hold over before GW gave everyone a codex with a lot more thing to balance and kinks to work out. I know many players don't want to change over to an all electronic system, (myself included) but that in my opinion is the only way to make a living rule set truly viable.


Even GW doesn't want to go to an all electronic system. If they're smart, they figure out how to give hardcopy owners a coupon for a free e-book of anything they own a hardcopy of. They want you to have both. And they don't want a living ruleset. There's not a doubt in my mind they want to set out an entire system, let it mature, and let someone else take over the job and watch human nature demand they fix what isn't broke, break what isn't fixed, and do it the way they think it should be done. Look at the history of Grenades. That's the story of 40K. They just don't know what to do with grenades. Are they a weapon you can attack with? Something that provides an in-game benefit/rule during assaults? Decorative but not functional beyond already being included in the "representation" of shooting the bolters? There are too many things they keep trying to rework to get just right for that.

Apocalypse is 9th.

And No, Apocalypse, an expansion like Cities of Death, KillTeam/Warbands, and the like is not 9th Edition.


Apoc is not an expansion. It's an entirely different game.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





 Lance845 wrote:


Apoc is not an expansion. It's an entirely different game.


This time around. So is Kill Teams. This time around. Both started as expansions. Kill Teams (And Warbands) had it's origin in a White Dwarf. I think Apocalypse first showed up in the back of the 4th Edition rule book. It's still an expansion until it survives on it's own a for a few editions. And Even you say it's not 9th Edition if it's "an entirely different game.".

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Breton wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:


Apoc is not an expansion. It's an entirely different game.


This time around. So is Kill Teams. This time around. Both started as expansions. Kill Teams (And Warbands) had it's origin in a White Dwarf. I think Apocalypse first showed up in the back of the 4th Edition rule book. It's still an expansion until it survives on it's own a for a few editions. And Even you say it's not 9th Edition if it's "an entirely different game.".


I am sorry. I fail to see the relevance of what a expansion was called in the past compared to the new game released today.

8th ed is an entirely different game from 7th. In the same capacity Apoc is an entirely different game from 8th. They could make an official 9th at some point. (by calling it that) They might. Hell it might even be likely. In the meantime there is a game called apoc that uses all the same models with rules changes that allow you to play games at the same scale or larger and have better games with more modern game design elements while ditching many of the archaic game design elements 8th hung onto from past editions. It does all the things a new edition does. Just like the move from 7th to 8th. You can argue semantics I guess if that makes you feel better. Here. You are right. Apocalypse is not called "Warhammer 40,000 9th Edition" and that fact is very relevant and important.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





 Lance845 wrote:


I am sorry. I fail to see the relevance


You fail to see a lot of things that interfere with your opinions. Including the relevance of years of historical perspective on the very subject being discussed. In the mean time there is a game called Cities of Death that uses all the same models with rules changes that allow you to play games at the same scale or larger with more modern game design elements while ditching the more archaic lack of bunkers and bastions. Maybe Apoc is 10th Edition.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
Made in us
Dominating Dominatrix






Breton wrote:
 Lance845 wrote:


I am sorry. I fail to see the relevance


You fail to see a lot of things that interfere with your opinions. Including the relevance of years of historical perspective on the very subject being discussed.


Your years of historical perspective mean exactly nothing in this instance. Try not to confuse what Apoc was with what Apoc is. When you have any actual point to make I will take it under consideration.

In the mean time there is a game called Cities of Death that uses all the same models with rules changes that allow you to play games at the same scale or larger with more modern game design elements while ditching the more archaic lack of bunkers and bastions. Maybe Apoc is 10th Edition.


https://www.games-workshop.com/en-US/Warhammer-40-000?N=2562756967&Nr=AND%28sku.siteId%3AUS_gw%2Cproduct.locale%3Aen_US_gw%29&Nrs=collection%28%29%2Frecord%5Bproduct.startDate+%3C%3D+1563669960000+and+product.endDate+%3E%3D+1563669960000%5D

On the side bar you might notice the Apoc is it's own section. Separate from both the boxed games AND 8th.

You might also notice that cities of death is not a product on there. What datasheets does CoD use? Are they the ones from 8ths codexes? Interesting. What core rules does it use? Is it just 8th? Hmm... I think you are having trouble with what is and is not an expansion.


These are my opinions. This is how I feel. Others may feel differently. This needs to be stated for some reason.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:

The Nazis were right. It's better to be a Nazi than a fan.

Thank you for getting me on the side of Milo and the Nazis.

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






CoD is an expansion. It uses all of the core 8th edition rules and unit/army rules with a few minor additions. IOW, it expands the base game.

Apocalypse is an entirely new game. It uses zero rules content from 8th edition and has very little in common with 8th edition other than using the same models, much like two different historical games could use the same Roman legion infantry models.

It's as simple as that, and the fact that there used to be an Apocalypse expansion in previous editions doesn't change the fact that it's an entirely separate game now.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/07/21 08:35:14


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Steadfast Ultramarine Sergeant





 Peregrine wrote:
CoD is an expansion. It uses all of the core 8th edition rules and unit/army rules with a few minor additions. IOW, it expands the base game.

Apocalypse is an entirely new game. It uses zero rules content from 8th edition and has very little in common with 8th edition other than using the same models, much like two different historical games could use the same Roman legion infantry models.

It's as simple as that, and the fact that there used to be an Apocalypse expansion in previous editions doesn't change the fact that it's an entirely separate game now.

The fact that "it's an entirely seperate game now" means it's not 9th edition. Again. And the fact that it was an expansion for years, and stand-alone spinoffs from GW rarely last long means it will probably be an expansion, again.

Your years of historical perspective mean exactly nothing in this instance. Try not to confuse what Apoc was with what Apoc is. When you have any actual point to make I will take it under consideration.
While we're waiting to see if Apoc as a standalone lasts as long as a standalone as it did as an expansion, lets go have a game of something else. Epic 40,000? Titan Legions? Rats.

My WHFB armies were Bretonians and Tomb Kings. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: