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.

Dudeface wrote:
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.

That's not even slightly what I'm doing. He's the one who wants to remove weapons and options, remember? How the hell can you say I'm telling people they have fun wrong when I'm advocating to leave everything in so anyone can pick and choose what they want? You realise how little sense your accusation makes?

If he doesn't want to take things because he doesn't like them, that's his prerogative. He, on the other hand, wants to actively remove things that others enjoy.

That's telling people that they're having fun the wrong way.

Fething hell, how do you not understand that?

I mean SWs, lore, don't follow the codex astartes or the standard formations of the other legions... used to be represented that way in the rules too.

but this entire conversation is moot. The overwhelming sentiment is: "Nothing is special except my special thing. Remove any flavour or special rules from anything that isn't my special thing." The whole argument of, they are exactly the same they just look different, they have the same 'tactical function, is ridiculous. If you really thought that logic through, that's literally the entire game. Your eldar, orks, marine, necrons and w/e else troops field the same tactical function but "just look different"

Honestly, I hope you guys get what you want one day and see how nice it will be to play with 6 or 7 datasheets to represent the entire game.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.

That's not even slightly what I'm doing. He's the one who wants to remove weapons and options, remember? How the hell can you say I'm telling people they have fun wrong when I'm advocating to leave everything in so anyone can pick and choose what they want? You realise how little sense your accusation makes?

If he doesn't want to take things because he doesn't like them, that's his prerogative. He, on the other hand, wants to actively remove things that others enjoy.

That's telling people that they're having fun the wrong way.

Fething hell, how do you not understand that?

You seemed pretty happy power level was removed, just saying. It is possible that the problems with the game are too many options, too much utter gak to try and juggle and balance and too many levels of padding. To fix those, you have to reduce stuff.

You cannot maintain the sheer volume of crap this game has and reduce bloat.

The big problem could be stackable rules and an overwhelming amount of them... not necessarily faction diversity. Again, give my SWs limitations, take regular marine abilities away from them, instead of just plopping bonuses on top of the vanilla marines. I want diversity not bonuses. If they stop doing this whole, "C is new/different so you get A+B+C" and instead just give me A, B or C . At least that would make me happy.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.

You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.

I would say there is a lot more to unpack here. Gravs are not necessarily an actual extra option and thus removing them is not necessarily a consolidation. The word 'Bloat' rears its ugly head here, followed by its dark brother 'Meaningless'. HÖWEVER, the other side of the coin is that removing Special Snowflakes with physical representation (like weapons) is a surefire way to piss off a lot of people who obviously (and understandably) have strong connections to their bought, assembled, and painted models regardless of their potentially superfluous rule representation. So the anti-fun doesn't come from not having the option but flipping up everyone who already bought into it (in a quite literal sense).

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 Hellebore wrote:
The difference is semantic.

It's not. People tend to like and have attachments to their chosen faction/s. Simply saying "Yeah none of that matters, just play 'Fighty Dudez' if you played Blood Angels, and now Ravenwing and White Scars are just 'Speedy Dudez', 'cause the difference between them is just semantic, right?" trivialises people's armies.

To repeat something I've been saying since at least 2007: 'Counts As' is never the answer.

Ultimately the difference between Ravenwing and White Scars is that Ravenwing has a much better selection of bikes than White Scars. So counts as is something I don't foresee happening.

I expect GW will have something like "First Company Veterans Detachment" as a choice for all SM flavours which gives perks for taking mainly Terminators, Bladeguard Veterans etc - and then a "Deathwing Detachment" for DA which will be broadly similar but have a slightly different set of bonuses/stratagems.

I don't think not doing this would trivalise people's collections exactly - but it just seems easy to do.

just look at AoS, Stormcast have 8 different Subfactions rules, Flesh Eaters have 4

so expect something similar with 40k, with Codex Marines get 10, Dark Angels and Blood Angels 8, Space Wolves maybe 13 and everyone else being down to 4

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.

That's not even slightly what I'm doing. He's the one who wants to remove weapons and options, remember? How the hell can you say I'm telling people they have fun wrong when I'm advocating to leave everything in so anyone can pick and choose what they want? You realise how little sense your accusation makes?

If he doesn't want to take things because he doesn't like them, that's his prerogative. He, on the other hand, wants to actively remove things that others enjoy.

That's telling people that they're having fun the wrong way.

Fething hell, how do you not understand that?

We agree on something.
We're sticking with 8th&9th, PL and all for our house. Done with the churn and burn.

 alextroy wrote:
Is it such a horrible thing that you define your chapter by the units you take instead of the special rules you get?

All Astartes use the Gladius Strike Force, which is just a fancy way of saying half a Tactical Company (a demi-Company of a Captain or Chaplin, 3 Tactical Squads, a fast attack squad (Assault Marine, Bikes, land speeders), and a Devastator Squad, plus support elements. Depending upon your Chapter, how you deploy and support that force will change.

White Scars love the tactical flexibility created by speed. All the Gladius Strike Force squads are in transports or are inherently mobile. They are most likely to use a Bike Squad as their fast attack element. They will supplement with more Bikes and vehicle mounted squads. They are less likely to bring Assault Marines with Jump Packs and slow elements like Dreadnoughts and non-vehicle artillery. Not having a you are fast rule doesn't make such a force less White Scars.

Conversely, Imperial Fist are famous for their acumen in siege warfare. They are more likely to concentrate on firepower by using tanks and artillery as support elements. They will also bring elements great for breaking sieges like Gravis and Centurion units. Are they somehow not Imperial Fist for lack of hits better with bolters rule?

I could go on, but the main point is does GW need to provide special bonuses with a chapter name slapped on them for you to have flavor in your army? Or can you do the work yourself by fielding an army that matches your vision of the chapter?

You know, honestly, 9th probably spoiled us, because through most of history it really was only characters wasn't it?

Zarathustra Spake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM...

How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.

Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.

The fact that Thousand Sons don't get access to the Strats and abilities from the CSM Codex is a big indicator they're NOT a Subfaction and are their own thing.

 Platuan4th wrote:

Zarathustra Spake wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Zarathustra Spake wrote:
Ksons are going to be a detachment of CSM...

How do you know that? Black Templars are a supplement for the Marine 'Dex. 1KSons aren't part of the CSM Codex. They're their own Codex.

Because Ksons is still a subfaction of CSM, and the whole point is to simplify and reduce the number of books needed. So it follows that they would fold them back into the CSM book rather then giving them a whole separate codex. Because they can just make it a detachment in The CSM army which is the whole point of this system change.

The fact that Thousand Sons don't get access to the Strats and abilities from the CSM Codex is a big indicator they're NOT a Subfaction and are their own thing.

It's irrelevant, they need 3 books now, they'd need 3 books as part of csm if you want tsons, daemons and knights.

Post ignored so just delete this lol

Dudeface wrote:
It's irrelevant, they need 3 books now, they'd need 3 books as part of csm if you want tsons, daemons and knights.

"Need" is not the right word there. Including Daemons and Knights is a choice. You've chosen to include Daemons and/or Knights in your 1KSons force. They, however, are not part of a 1KSons force, they are added to it.

The only book a 1KSons player needs to play 1KSons is the 1KSons book.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
It's irrelevant, they need 3 books now, they'd need 3 books as part of csm if you want tsons, daemons and knights.

"Need" is not the right word there. Including Daemons and Knights is a choice. You've chosen to include Daemons and/or Knights in your 1KSons force. They, however, are not part of a 1KSons force, they are added to it.

The only book a 1KSons player needs to play 1KSons is the 1KSons book.

Very true indeed, I suppose I have a hard time divorcing playing a mono god legion from having the daemonic support bundled in. Too many editions of flip flopping over how it/they work and what Daemons are supposed to be at this point.

I'd much prefer the AoS approach to Chaos, folding the Daemons back into the main Codices rather than treating them as an entirely separate faction. Not that I'd want Daemon armies to go away - any Codex should be flexible enough to allow for mixed armies, all CSM armies, and all Daemon armies - we just don't need an extra Daemon book to achieve that.

Doubly so for factions that don't have a lot of options to begin with - World Eaters spring to mind - where the influx of Daemonic options would be a boon.

Grotsnik started a thread not long ago about whether 40k needs more Daemons, and it's an interesting question because I think that, for the purposes of mono-god Daemon armies, yes, we need more. I look at how Total War Warhammer III handles Daemons - it really stretches out what counts as a unit, inventing "Exalted" Bloodletters/Daemonettes/etc. as a higher tier unit of infantry, and taking the squad leaders out of squads to make them fully fledged characters, and even including mortal units just for some extra variety. All because there aren't many Daemons.

Bringing that back to 40k, I think introducing new daemons is fine, but I think it'd be easier to fold them back into the core Chaos books.

I wish demons were naturally part of their CSM equivalents with no restrictions; maybe there will be Gods-themed detachments that allow this, at least i hope so.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.

That's not even slightly what I'm doing. He's the one who wants to remove weapons and options, remember? How the hell can you say I'm telling people they have fun wrong when I'm advocating to leave everything in so anyone can pick and choose what they want? You realise how little sense your accusation makes?

If he doesn't want to take things because he doesn't like them, that's his prerogative. He, on the other hand, wants to actively remove things that others enjoy.

That's telling people that they're having fun the wrong way.

Fething hell, how do you not understand that?

You'd have a point if Grav was an actual niche to fill (it isn't), there was a reason to have 5 different Terminator entries (there isn't) and there was a good reason to not let Dark Angels take Sternguard and Vanguard (there isn't).

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dark Angels aren't special.

Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.

If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?

Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.

The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.

You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.

And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.

Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.

So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.

*EDIT* - I seem to have missed a page when I posted here, but I think the points still stand.

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dark Angels aren't special.

Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.

If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?

Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.

The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.

You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.

And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.

Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.

So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.

So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dark Angels aren't special.

Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.

If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?

Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.

The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.

Maybe it's because the vision in my head isn't the same as others, let me try to reiterate a little.

If there is a "veterans" or 1st company detachment, that happens to have perks for all dreads/vets/terminator keywords, then deathwing already have extra deathwing-ness on their profile, then arguably what more do you need to field the deathwing? I understand that they almost certainly will get their own stuff, but there isn't a *need* to me, as the DA player can use their terminator units in a detachment that benefits terminators and will have their DA extra stuff on the datasheet. It's down to the player to want to use the right units for the fluff at that point and they still get the benefit for doing so.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

So give us a White Scar 2 page spread, and a White Scar Superfast Bikey Bikeness Bike Assault formation that shows them using more bikes. And have a separate one for Ravenwing, as they're not the same as White Scar Bikers. Have a 1st Company 2 page spread, but damn well make sure that the Deathwing have their own.

And you're part of the problem here with bloat. Deathwing don't need their own special snowflake rules.

That's not bloat.

Spoiler:

You know what the bloat of 9th is - 40+ Strats, half as many psychic powers divided up between a bunch of factions, all with specific warlord traits and relics on top of the standard ones for the Codex. Plus rules for those factions, and rules for taking only that faction and so on. And then having rules on top of that that allow you to mix different abilities without counting against your "purity bonus" and everything else that makes players go cross-eyed.

Being able to take a Deathwing army and have the rules represent that and show that it's different from a Codex Chapter's 1st Company isn't anywhere near as "bloat" as the above. Stop trying to redefine bloat as having a few different options. Next you'll be saying Tactical Squads are bloated because they have 4 different special weapons to chose from.

A bit late to respond to this but: Nah mate, that's absolutely bloat.

Someone else said it best, but 4th edition did it best. SM chapters largely had the same rules with a few special customization things they could take (you could take more bikers but not take any dreads, bolters counted as a pistol for CQC purposes, ect) which took up a grand total of 2-4 pages in the main codex. Then the high-profile chapters got their own mini codex which tacked on a bit more; IIRC it was just Dark Angels and Wolves for that edition?

The current system of marine roles is the text book example of bloat. A massive unwieldly codex packed to the gills with special rules for space marines, special rules for being space marines in specific phases, and space marines being painted special colors. Then with a few more rules for being space marines painted special colors in specific phases.

That's without even tackling the chapter-specific supplements and successor chapters.

Marine chapters can be differentiated almost entirely by how you choose to build and paint your army; ergo merely the ability to take a full armies of terminators represents the Deathwing, where as an army of all bikes + speeders represents the Ravenwing / White Scars. You do not need four (or more) layers of army-wide special rules, numerous unique units with their own special rules, and additional specific detachment and organization to represent each chapter. It's utterly insane. Using that method has been the singlest-largest contributing factor to bloat in the game.

Dudeface wrote:
If there is a "veterans" or 1st company detachment, that happens to have perks for all dreads/vets/terminator keywords, then deathwing already have extra deathwing-ness on their profile, then arguably what more do you need to field the deathwing? I understand that they almost certainly will get their own stuff, but there isn't a *need* to me, as the DA player can use their terminator units in a detachment that benefits terminators and will have their DA extra stuff on the datasheet. It's down to the player to want to use the right units for the fluff at that point and they still get the benefit for doing so.

I don't think there's a strict "need" - but fairly confident GW will do it anyway. If Detachments are just two pages, its not like they are going to be short on space.
They'll get some different stratagems etc that are more tailored to DA fluff.

Admittedly I'd assume DA fluff is going to experience a significant step forward with the Lion being back. But presumably it will still be "Sons of the Lion this", "Unforgiven that" and "omg the location of the Cypher might be inside this Hive Tyrant" etc.

Siegfriedfr wrote:
I wish demons were naturally part of their CSM equivalents with no restrictions; maybe there will be Gods-themed detachments that allow this, at least i hope so.

Summoning is returning. Not the same thing, of course, but it's there.

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dark Angels aren't special.

Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.

If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?

Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.

The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.

You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.

And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.

Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.

So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.

So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?

Having 3 different sheets gets you around the Rule of 3.
So (pts etc permitting) I can have 3 termies, 3 assault termies, 3 relic termies, 3 DW Knights. Etc etc
If all termies were 1 sheet with a long list of options?
Then I could only have 3 total termie units.
Having access to 9+ termie units is certainly more fun than being limited to 3.
And that'll still be true when 10th arrives.

 morganfreeman wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

So give us a White Scar 2 page spread, and a White Scar Superfast Bikey Bikeness Bike Assault formation that shows them using more bikes. And have a separate one for Ravenwing, as they're not the same as White Scar Bikers. Have a 1st Company 2 page spread, but damn well make sure that the Deathwing have their own.

And you're part of the problem here with bloat. Deathwing don't need their own special snowflake rules.

That's not bloat.

Spoiler:

You know what the bloat of 9th is - 40+ Strats, half as many psychic powers divided up between a bunch of factions, all with specific warlord traits and relics on top of the standard ones for the Codex. Plus rules for those factions, and rules for taking only that faction and so on. And then having rules on top of that that allow you to mix different abilities without counting against your "purity bonus" and everything else that makes players go cross-eyed.

Being able to take a Deathwing army and have the rules represent that and show that it's different from a Codex Chapter's 1st Company isn't anywhere near as "bloat" as the above. Stop trying to redefine bloat as having a few different options. Next you'll be saying Tactical Squads are bloated because they have 4 different special weapons to chose from.

A bit late to respond to this but: Nah mate, that's absolutely bloat.

Someone else said it best, but 4th edition did it best. SM chapters largely had the same rules with a few special customization things they could take (you could take more bikers but not take any dreads, bolters counted as a pistol for CQC purposes, ect) which took up a grand total of 2-4 pages in the main codex. Then the high-profile chapters got their own mini codex which tacked on a bit more; IIRC it was just Dark Angels and Wolves for that edition?

The current system of marine roles is the text book example of bloat. A massive unwieldly codex packed to the gills with special rules for space marines, special rules for being space marines in specific phases, and space marines being painted special colors. Then with a few more rules for being space marines painted special colors in specific phases.

That's without even tackling the chapter-specific supplements and successor chapters.

Marine chapters can be differentiated almost entirely by how you choose to build and paint your army; ergo merely the ability to take a full armies of terminators represents the Deathwing, where as an army of all bikes + speeders represents the Ravenwing / White Scars. You do not need four (or more) layers of army-wide special rules, numerous unique units with their own special rules, and additional specific detachment and organization to represent each chapter. It's utterly insane. Using that method has been the singlest-largest contributing factor to bloat in the game.

Following this discussion, I think a this is the closest thing anyone gets to acknowledging the fundamental truth of 40k:

Space Marines ARE the bloat.

Everything people get up in arms about causing bloat boils down to something GW implements for the sake of marines, that they are then forced to copy onto the NPC factions because the smaller money sacks get uppity about not getting anything for months at a time. 200 hundred different stratagems? Marines. Formations? Marines. Needing 30 supplement books to build a competitive list? Marines. Constantly needing new special snowflake BS to represent incredibly small unit variations for fluff reasons? Marines.

Obviously, the only TRUE long term answer to bloat is to remove marines entirely. Failling that, consolidate the army down to 5 datasheets(1 for 'character' 1 for 'trooper' one for 'elite trooper' 1 for 'small vehicle' 1 for 'large' vehicle. Use whatever models get vaguely close.), and then change subfaction rules to 'if the model is painted red, +1 to charge, blue +1 to leadership, green +1" to melta range, black +1 to movement, etc.

ccs wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Dark Angels aren't special.

Except they very clearly are and have been treated as such for literal decades. Just because you don't think they should be doesn't mean they are.

If the deathwing rules are on the unique deathwing unit entry, then what are they at the next level up? A company of terminators? Much like a 1st company?

Point of order - most 1st companies don't have enough suits of Terminator armour for everyone to wear one - that's why we ave Sternguard, Vanguard, and other veteran units.

The Deathwing are meant to be distinctive by being able to field an entire company of Terminators.

Dudeface wrote:

EviscerationPlague wrote:
Also regarding Tacticals I'm for removing Grav as a weapon entry so that should answer that question.

You're a consolidationist. You want to remove flavour and options from the game. You are anti-fun.

And now you're telling people they have fun wrong.

Consolidationists don't have to use the options they don't want to - but if they get their way and the options are removed, those who do want to use them can't.

So, yes they are anti-fun, as they're actively pushing for others to have less fun, by aiming for them to have less options.

So what's the "options and fun" with Terminators and Assault Terminators and Relic Terminators being separate entries instead of just one Terminator profile?

Having 3 different sheets gets you around the Rule of 3.
So (pts etc permitting) I can have 3 termies, 3 assault termies, 3 relic termies, 3 DW Knights. Etc etc
If all termies were 1 sheet with a long list of options?
Then I could only have 3 total termie units.
Having access to 9+ termie units is certainly more fun than being limited to 3.
And that'll still be true when 10th arrives.

Isn't that a problem with Rule Of 3 to begin with due to how it scales poorly? Did other Marine Chapters just run out of Power Armor so they HAVE to use Terminators instead of an extra squad of Sternguard and Vanguard?

This just tickled me given the complaints at not stacking traits/relics, gives so much ammo as to why this is needed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/127l86y/which_sm_chapter_has_the_strongest_no_named_jump/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Dudeface wrote:
This just tickled me given the complaints at not stacking traits/relics, gives so much ammo as to why this is needed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/127l86y/which_sm_chapter_has_the_strongest_no_named_jump/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Literally none of this is an issue

EviscerationPlague wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
This just tickled me given the complaints at not stacking traits/relics, gives so much ammo as to why this is needed:

https://www.reddit.com/r/WarhammerCompetitive/comments/127l86y/which_sm_chapter_has_the_strongest_no_named_jump/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=android_app&utm_name=androidcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button

Literally none of this is an issue

You don't think pushing characters to dropping 9 s8 ap-4 d4 attacks via 0 point upgrades is an issue?