Switch Theme:

40k community balance council  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Author Message
Advert


Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
  • No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
  • Times and dates in your local timezone.
  • Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
  • Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
  • Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.




Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut




UK

Honestly I think Warcaster has one of the best approaches to dealing with lots of niche units in a wargame.

The core issue is that niche units only work best in select situations, so they generally rarely appear in generalist lists used for all-comers or competitive events unless the meta happens to skew toward those niches.

Warcaster does away with that by having a living sideboard. Basically your whole army is a sideboard and you simply summon into the game what you need. The bonus there is you can put niches into your sideboard and just not summon them if you don't need them.
The other aspect is that they do away with scoring from kills as a core mechanic so any unit killed on the field just returns to the sideboard pool to be summoned again. IT creates a lot of openings for "weaker" units that won't "kill back their points" and buff units as well as creating situations where suicide and sacrificial tactics are more viable.

Print Hunter
Check out the latest 3D print model releases!  
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

 Strg Alt wrote:
It can be done. 9th Age is proof of that.

9th Age is just the proof that if there are no official rules any more, and a big event is supporting it, a game based on a GW game can be made
but this was already known long before Warhammer died with Bloodbowl

so his point is still true, as long as GW is doing something, there won't be a community edition

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 JohnnyHell wrote:
Didn’t we just have a thread where people tried to fix the rules as “a community” and there was zero consensus and much disagreement?

See that for likely results for such an endeavour.


Yes, this was my thread. Had to rename it from "Community" to "Alternative" edition as the term of community was misleading. In a nutshell you need a couple of individuals willing to put effort in writing and testing rules. Though hardly anybody has time for that.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tampa,FL USA

 Strg Alt wrote:

It can be done. 9th Age is proof of that.


If anything, 9th Age disproves it. 9th Age couldn't even keep their own community from fracturing multiple times because the group determining the rules has changed direction multiple times.

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 Platuan4th wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

It can be done. 9th Age is proof of that.


If anything, 9th Age disproves it. 9th Age couldn't even keep their own community from fracturing multiple times because the group determining the rules has changed direction multiple times.


+1. The only reason 9th age survived intact as long as it did was because they were united in how much they all hated Sigmar. Once that had faded a bit, the infighting began.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Strg Alt wrote:
 JohnnyHell wrote:
Didn’t we just have a thread where people tried to fix the rules as “a community” and there was zero consensus and much disagreement?

See that for likely results for such an endeavour.


Yes, this was my thread. Had to rename it from "Community" to "Alternative" edition as the term of community was misleading. In a nutshell you need a couple of individuals willing to put effort in writing and testing rules. Though hardly anybody has time for that.


That's just to make the ruleset. Actually convincing anyone to use it, or even more difficult enjoy it, is a totally different endeavour.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/19 22:16:09


2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tampa,FL USA

ERJAK wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

It can be done. 9th Age is proof of that.


If anything, 9th Age disproves it. 9th Age couldn't even keep their own community from fracturing multiple times because the group determining the rules has changed direction multiple times.


+1. The only reason 9th age survived intact as long as it did was because they were united in how much they all hated Sigmar. Once that had faded a bit, the infighting began.


Truth. I once jokingly asked the guys I knew on the first version of the 9th Age ruling council(or whatever they call themselves) when we were getting Stormcast 9th Age rules and was straight face told "We don't write rules for GW models".

You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




 Overread wrote:
Honestly I think Warcaster has one of the best approaches to dealing with lots of niche units in a wargame.

The core issue is that niche units only work best in select situations, so they generally rarely appear in generalist lists used for all-comers or competitive events unless the meta happens to skew toward those niches.

Warcaster does away with that by having a living sideboard. Basically your whole army is a sideboard and you simply summon into the game what you need. The bonus there is you can put niches into your sideboard and just not summon them if you don't need them.
The other aspect is that they do away with scoring from kills as a core mechanic so any unit killed on the field just returns to the sideboard pool to be summoned again. IT creates a lot of openings for "weaker" units that won't "kill back their points" and buff units as well as creating situations where suicide and sacrificial tactics are more viable.


I like where niche units only work in certain scenarios. The problem is the community shoves HARD on making sure those certain scenarios become ALL scenarios and any deviation from that list of scenarios is going to be met with some rigid hostility.

Sideboards are fine but just let people create several min/max list combos and use whichever they need for whichever scenario.

In order for scenarios to truly enforce some balance, you have to make it so you can't min/max against them all, and any of them can come up so if you do skew build, you can draw a scenario that really kicks you hard. This however is also a very unpopular approach.
   
Made in pt
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

Rihgu wrote:
 jeff white wrote:
Rihgu wrote:
No two people in this community let alone the wider community agree on what's good or what's bad.
Spoiler:


This existed up until 9th edition, with the ITC and ETC and NOVA Open tournament circuits, though. Enough people (begrudgingly or otherwise) followed along that it worked out, but once a lot of the ideas of ITC/NOVA were absorbed in the core rules, people gave up on having their own and just used the official stuff.

Do you believe this? Who do you play with? You always arguing? Personally, I think that this is false.


I do not play with any members of the Dakka community. But you're right, I was performing some hyperbole. But you've seen how many threads stretch to 15 pages of "Ork buggies are too good" "No Ork buggies are good enough" "no actually Ork Buggies are bad and if you're losing to them you need to learn to play".

Thanks for engaging. Exalted.

I think that GW could offer a compendium of rules from all editions covering all aspects of the game, and that groups could choose to use this or that rule instead of the standard for the current edition. People could mix and match, use more realism for smaller games and less for more. Line of sight is a good example here. I mean there are good and bad things about different ways of doing things, so people could just choose what seems to suit.

But sure, the balance and OP controversies are to my mind not really divisive so much as discussants discussing, however poorly, and that is not a sign of a fractioned community, or at least shouldn’t be… it is natural for controversies to arise.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/19 22:29:53


   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






 kodos wrote:
this assumption already caused some problems in the past

When? GW has never gotten balance that good in the past. A-T unit X being 1% undercosted and unit Y being 3% overcosted hardly matters. Even if X is always better, the advantage is slight enough to be irrelevant.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 Platuan4th wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

It can be done. 9th Age is proof of that.


If anything, 9th Age disproves it. 9th Age couldn't even keep their own community from fracturing multiple times because the group determining the rules has changed direction multiple times.


Yep. Posts like these every now and then. These are not much more than a week old. What some fail to see and what GW does well is the engagement of the hobby. Any system based on a snapshot of someone else's minis will whither simply because it becomes really difficult to integrate new models and therefore new excitement. To maintain that "perfect balance" you need to limit the input.

As a personal remark at the end, since the beginning of T9A I have never considered leaving this game. Today, was the first time that I honestly thought about it because I can't see another explanation for this trend and the apparent blindness of the rule team in this regard, then the willingness to accept a horrible game design (and a slap in the face of BH, but also OnG) in exchange for (1) not touching the rule book, (2) getting rid of the rule via a backdoor, and (3) allowing army teams to circumvent a core mechanic because they try to reduce weaknesses. It was for the first time that I felt badly represented by the rules team.

I don't say this to "threaten". And what ridiculous kind of threat would that be, me leaving the game? I say it because it might illustrae the severness of this criticism. The trend is apparent and undeniable, and still nothing is done against it. I feel like this game is not anymore a game that I can say with 100% of my heart is designed in a good fashion and with intentions that represent mine. That honestly makes me sad and numb right now, So, I just hope that this topic will make you rethink your policy on that.



And now no fresh blood is in only some of us hard core gamers remain.. Some years ago i could pick between 20 games in UB now 3-4 TOPS... I think we should ENTIRELY shift our energy from achieving the "perfect balance" so that X super player is happy and data correlate perfectly to "REACH OUT MORE PEOPLE".

   
Made in us
Clousseau




thing is, super bad balance also repels players.

Perfect balance is impossible.

But I would think any game that touts points should mean if I build a 2000 point list that its in the same league as your list.

So many times, its like pee wee league vs professional sports level disparity and thats busted.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 vict0988 wrote:
When? GW has never gotten balance that good in the past. A-T unit X being 1% undercosted and unit Y being 3% overcosted hardly matters. Even if X is always better, the advantage is slight enough to be irrelevant.


Yes. It might be that a tournament player would always choose X - but if the random effects of dice could easily drown it out to the point where it won't matter.

I suspect though the problem is GW don't ever get things to within 1%ish of each other.

I.E. I doubt there'd be an obvious win percentage difference between someone playing with 2k points and someone with say 1980.
But at say 2k versus 1800, you are denying someone a whole squad or two - and I think that would weigh on their win percentage quite heavily.

And that's sort of what you are doing by loading up on the bad options.
   
Made in us
Confessor Of Sins




 auticus wrote:
thing is, super bad balance also repels players.

Perfect balance is impossible.

But I would think any game that touts points should mean if I build a 2000 point list that its in the same league as your list.

So many times, its like pee wee league vs professional sports level disparity and thats busted.



You slamming down 2000pts of whatever happened to be on your shelf that day should ABSOLUTELY lose and lose badly to an actually thought out army. Even in games that are considered to be much better balanced than 40k, you still don't have and don't WANT army construction to be a non-factor.



2500pts
2500
3000


 
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Platuan4th wrote:
ERJAK wrote:

+1. The only reason 9th age survived intact as long as it did was because they were united in how much they all hated Sigmar. Once that had faded a bit, the infighting began.

Truth. I once jokingly asked the guys I knew on the first version of the 9th Age ruling council(or whatever they call themselves) when we were getting Stormcast 9th Age rules and was straight face told "We don't write rules for GW models".

the reason it survived is that it was used by the ETC, and a promise that it will be Warhammer
in the very beginning they promised rules for Stormcast and Dogs of War, their main unit design for armies was also based on 8th Edition GW models, so armies that did not got an 8th Edition big monster were not allowed to get one in 9th Age
While on the other side, Base sizes for Greater Demons were changed to fit the new larger GW models

After version 1.3, the team behind agreed that the best option for the future is being their own game but with a slow change, specially for the armies to keep the people calm and get them used to the new rules
and the 2.0 Rules have the same problem as the GW rules, with the new Army design being made after the core rules were set in stone (so a lot of special rules are added via Army Books to work around core rules that are "blocking" the army design)

and of course now people are arguing against new designs as they play the game because it promised to stay 8th Edi Warhammer and now all armies turn into new things
while at the same time, those that want to change it into a new game are angry because changes are not going far enough and "weak" armies are too much focused on GW legacy compatibility (Beastmen see no love from GW, so no love from T9A either)

but it will be interesting how this develops in future as the ETC already broke up (40k left and makes their own "World" Team Tournament to get GW support, T9A already has their own WTC (not limited to 1 team per nation) next to the ETC and only Flames of War is left as original main event
with the ongoing Pandemic, things are changing and I am not sure if the ETC will recover as the big and important event it once was

vict0988 wrote:
 kodos wrote:
this assumption already caused some problems in the past
When?

beginning of 8th when GW said everything can be balanced with points and no rules changes are needed

example: Horrors, 3 units with 1 Wound and 4++, it did not matter that they were balanced in points yet the basic task was being chaff and it did not matter that Pinks or Blues could do so much more, for more points as long as Brimstones had the same defense and were cheaper they were better

perfect balanced points are not the able to balance the units, as if you pay for abilities the unit does not need the points are right but the balance between units is wrong
but if you need this additional abilities to justify the existence of those units (because otherwise they would just be the same with different models), you are going to have a problem

9th Age ran into a similar problem, and their balance adjustments are now based on how often units are used in tournaments, while claiming to be the most balanced tabletop game out there
those units that are taken often get a point increase, while those that are not taken a decrease, does not matter if the points were already right or not, just changing it to keep the meta alive and force people into taking something different (and rules changes are not possible for units until they get the new army book)


Automatically Appended Next Post:
ERJAK wrote:

You slamming down 2000pts of whatever happened to be on your shelf that day should ABSOLUTELY lose and lose badly to an actually thought out army. Even in games that are considered to be much better balanced than 40k, you still don't have and don't WANT army construction to be a non-factor.

fun fact, this is what GW wants to avoid by adding as much randomness to the rules as possible
that a well thought thru list has the same chance as a random collection of 2000 points (they are just bad in bringing that idea to the table)

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/20 07:07:25


Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






Brimstones were probably the single most undercosted model in the game. This is just a silly example. Pinks, Blues and Brims aren't balanced against each other now, so what did making them different from each other achieve? Nothing. Because in the end, points have to align with value in scoring VP to balance a unit.

The old Horrors could probably have been balanced at 5/6/8 pts, but they were 2/5/10. The datasheet did not create a balance problem, badly mathed and tested points did. Brimstones and Blues had their rules changed before there was a chance to fix their cost properly, Brimstones went up to 3 pts but that still made them one of the best Daemon units.

I am not saying that Horrors should have stayed the way they were, but it would not have been impossible or even hard to balance.

The list should only be 20% of the game, yeah if you go out to actively build something anti-synergistic you should be at a big disadvantage, but if you learn to play with whatever collection you have to the highest possible level then it should still be good. A lot of list concepts right now just fail because of math, rather than in inherent flaw in the design of the list (like it cannot deal with X or achieve Y), that's not fun.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 odorofdeath wrote:
Yo yo yo! I'm curious if there's ever been any attempt at a community driven rules/balance council type thing for 40k?


This would be quite common in local, small, enclosed groups (aka garagehammer and homebrewing). But beyond a handful of likeminded people agreeing to mutual restrictions or a common understanding of what should be brought to the table and what rules to use/change, its very difficult to get this on a larger scale.

Within the PP community, by necessity there are community mods like 'brawlmachine' that have enthused a lot of thevremaining players but the 40k player base is greater than that of warmachine by sever orders of magnitude.

Closest we've had was itc/etc or the post-wfb
refugees and even then, they divided and fractured as much as anything to the point where a lot of players refused to accept them since they were perceived as unofficial or homebrew. No one homebrew has ever gotten the community behind it. It's like herding cats. Everyone has their own ideas which is why so many prefer the 'order' of the official rules over the 'anarchy' of community projects.

And that too is a thing. big thing to keep in mind is the dogma of 'official at all costs' view that pervades our community. A lot of gamers, ironically, are extremely Conservative when it comes to playing their games and the notion of deviating from the exactly described rules is greeted with rigid hostility. It doesn't matter if the rules are bad. If they're official, that's the end of it, and yes, people will grumble but they'll get in line and they're followed.

greatest band in the universe: machine supremacy

"Punch your fist in the air and hold your Gameboy aloft like the warrior you are" 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Platuan4th wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

It can be done. 9th Age is proof of that.


If anything, 9th Age disproves it. 9th Age couldn't even keep their own community from fracturing multiple times because the group determining the rules has changed direction multiple times.


+1. The only reason 9th age survived intact as long as it did was because they were united in how much they all hated Sigmar. Once that had faded a bit, the infighting began.


Truth. I once jokingly asked the guys I knew on the first version of the 9th Age ruling council(or whatever they call themselves) when we were getting Stormcast 9th Age rules and was straight face told "We don't write rules for GW models".


I will translate what he meant by this: "We don´t want Sigmarines in the 9th Age setting."

And I agree with him.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Platuan4th wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

It can be done. 9th Age is proof of that.


If anything, 9th Age disproves it. 9th Age couldn't even keep their own community from fracturing multiple times because the group determining the rules has changed direction multiple times.


This has no ill influence on my 9th Age experience. I downloaded all the rules necessary for my models when they were released the first time. It´s stellar work and not something hastily scribbled down on four pages by a starving GW intern.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2022/01/20 10:04:54


 
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





Tampa,FL USA

You have a very low bar for what is "stellar work"(it was competently written but was terrible as a game and wasn't fun) and not sure you know what success means if it's defined as "fractured group that hemorrhages members".

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/20 15:02:01


You know you're really doing something when you can make strangers hate you over the Internet. - Mauleed
Just remember folks. Panic. Panic all the time. It's the only way to survive, other than just being mindful, of course-but geez, that's so friggin' boring. - Aegis Grimm
Hallowed is the All Pie
The Before Times: A Place That Celebrates The World That Was 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




You slamming down 2000pts of whatever happened to be on your shelf that day should ABSOLUTELY lose and lose badly to an actually thought out army. Even in games that are considered to be much better balanced than 40k, you still don't have and don't WANT army construction to be a non-factor.


And I dont want to play a game where just because you picked the red shoe because you crawled reddit to find out which piece was the most powerful, you get double the output. And then next year the $800 red shoe token is now a C choice because the rules writer made the $750 Black Hat token the most well thought out choice of tokens so you better go out and buy it!

So I guess we're at an impasse.

The more army construction matters, the more you move away from balance, because when you boil it down you are creating a mess of false-choices you ignore in favor of the tiny nugget of the game you should be taking instead.

It is also possible to move too far into "balance" so that army construction "doesn't matter at all" but thats also not what I'm advocating.

I can take a game of Battletech... give me 5000 BV to create forces, and almost always for the past however long the BV2 system has existed had at least a fun exciting game that wasn't a blowout turn 1. Thats more the direction I want to go with any game I play. And in Battletech you have no faction specific mechs, you can literally take anything you want and still get a pretty good game most of the time by picking the vehicles and mechs you like the most. Not a perfectly balanced game, but something worth driving an hour to a game store and playing as opposed to showing up, unpacking and deploying and 20 minutes later wrapping up because the lists were so badly misaligned in power to be grotesque - which is my experience with 40k.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/20 22:01:11


 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Platuan4th wrote:
You have a very low bar for what is "stellar work"(it was competently written but was terrible as a game and wasn't fun) and not sure you know what success means if it's defined as "fractured group that hemorrhages members".


Why would that be the case?
   
Made in us
Clousseau




After a lengthy and rather awesome in-depth conversation on the differences between a game like battletech and what appeals to players in a game like 40k that I just recently had to get a better perspective on the overall discussion, I rescind my above comments.

The type of game 40k is lends itself to appealing to the list building phase and being able to min/max combos - thats as much a part of the game as playing the game.

As such you can't really "balance" that because it would take away that aspect of the game. You can only really shift the balance around and change what else to min/max instead.

If you want a balanced narrative type experience in 40k you need a GM to abjugate lists and to set narrative scenarios that deviate from competitive play.

That I know can be done but you will need trusted friends likely outside of a game store.
   
Made in pt
[DCM]
Secret Inquisitorial Eldar Xenexecutor






your mind

 Strg Alt wrote:
Spoiler:
 Platuan4th wrote:
ERJAK wrote:
 Platuan4th wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

It can be done. 9th Age is proof of that.


If anything, 9th Age disproves it. 9th Age couldn't even keep their own community from fracturing multiple times because the group determining the rules has changed direction multiple times.


+1. The only reason 9th age survived intact as long as it did was because they were united in how much they all hated Sigmar. Once that had faded a bit, the infighting began.


Truth. I once jokingly asked the guys I knew on the first version of the 9th Age ruling council(or whatever they call themselves) when we were getting Stormcast 9th Age rules and was straight face told "We don't write rules for GW models".


I will translate what he meant by this: "We don´t want Sigmarines in the 9th Age setting."

And I agree with him.

Spoiler:

Automatically Appended Next Post:
 Platuan4th wrote:
 Strg Alt wrote:

It can be done. 9th Age is proof of that.


If anything, 9th Age disproves it. 9th Age couldn't even keep their own community from fracturing multiple times because the group determining the rules has changed direction multiple times.


This has no ill influence on my 9th Age experience. I downloaded all the rules necessary for my models when they were released the first time. It´s stellar work and not something hastily scribbled down on four pages by a starving GW intern.

Wow, I like 9th Age more knowing this! Thanks!


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 auticus wrote:
After a lengthy and rather awesome in-depth conversation on the differences between a game like battletech and what appeals to players in a game like 40k that I just recently had to get a better perspective on the overall discussion, I rescind my above comments.

The type of game 40k is lends itself to appealing to the list building phase and being able to min/max combos - thats as much a part of the game as playing the game.

As such you can't really "balance" that because it would take away that aspect of the game. You can only really shift the balance around and change what else to min/max instead.

If you want a balanced narrative type experience in 40k you need a GM to abjugate lists and to set narrative scenarios that deviate from competitive play.

That I know can be done but you will need trusted friends likely outside of a game store.

Courageous. Exalted.

As I am not a fan of deck building, so much, because if I were then I would be into MtG and other (imho) nast, this "aspect of the game" is not a selling point for me e.g. collecting the current trump card per GW marketing, and I agree with your conclusion there wholeheartedly.

Anybody hanging out at a hobby store looking to throw down on his or her latest deck, errr, list "build" is certainly not going to share this mindset, so for me it is an avoid at all cost situation as opposed to a drive an hour to that same shop for a more mature experience.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/21 16:05:23


   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




To my mind it depends on what people mean by list building.

I.E. if I bring a load of tanks, and you bring a load of anti-tank units - shouldn't you have an advantage?
Or lets say I decide to bring a "Buff Close Combat Units Character" - but don't bring any close combat units. Shouldn't I be worse off than if I actually made use of that synergy?

I think what people dislike is "Unit X is amazing for its points (compared to 40k average), but Unit Y is utter trash for its points (compared to 40k average). If you spend your points on Unit Y, then you are getting maybe 80%~ of the value I'm getting in X, so its not really surprising the odds are massively skewed in my favour, and I'll usually win."

The problem being that if your whole collection is Y - its not plausible to say "just break out £500 or more and buy yourself a new army".

But by and large GW has been a lot better than they have been historically on that.
   
Made in at
Discriminating Warrior





Austria

Classic list building means choosing between units to find those that work well together
Magic had this, WM/Hordes, X-Wing etc

For GW games this means finding the 1 list that works among the many options that don't work
9th Age also follow that and it is even a design goal that every faction has 2 viable lists that work (with minor options)
And the list that works changes over time with each edition, so that people not only need 1-2 new units but a new army
This is the way a lot of MMOs go as well, among all the stuff you find the class has onky 1 viable build that get the most out if it

I can understand that some people like that but I prefer the other concept as in times of net-lists there is no big thrill in finding the best units to get an army working

Harry, bring this ring to Narnia or the Sith will take the Enterprise

M41 - Alternative Rules for Battles in the 41st Millennium (40k LRB Project) 
   
Made in us
Clousseau




wall of text not needed. Redacted

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2022/01/21 21:59:45


 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: