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.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

the_scotsman wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:

 Void__Dragon wrote:

Karol wrote:
Try fixing a bad list by adding a couple of bits. Or is it the type of bad, eldar players claim to be in right now?

Are you implying Eldar aren't bad right now?

yeah he is. In his mind eldar is an evil army that should be trash tier because his gakky premade GK list couldnt win against eldar flyers and his opponents refused to tone it down to make him enjoy it more.

On one hand he wants eldar to be trash tier then he turns around and cries because his GK arent top tier. Truly toxic.

Eldar players are easily the most entitled players in the game to be fair.

.....in what possible terms could eldar players be more entitled than fething 'we got 3 codexes in the span of a year while everybody else combined got 3, deal with it, we're the main army that the game is about' marine players?

Imagine considering codex count compared to being the overall most competitive army in the history of the game, especially when you also have third party bitz to make up for whatever lack of models you want to complain about from almighty GW.

Yeah, Eldar players are entitled. Literallg no sympathy for them.

I'll swap you - you can have a single marine army with 30 year old miniatures in it, and a small unit list. But hey, you get a few spam gimmick list options using those old units.


I'll take an eldar army with a half dozen different sets of codices, new aspect units every year, a whole slew of exarch plastic models, new warlock types and new grav tank variants.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:


I'm a control player and everytime i'd show up at FNM when control was strong, people would personally attack me and tell me that I was the reason the game sucked.
I've seen the same happen with Tron/Blitz/Scapeshift and all that. The complaint is two-part, "Why doenst WotC ban the deck" and "Why are you abusing the deck"

Its the same complaint i see with 40k. "Eradicators are op, why are you abusing them"

Some points of similarity and difference. If you're playing control in MtG or LoL you're having fun by going out of your way to make absolutely sure your opponent can't play the game at all. Anti-fun as said above (and a good bit of why I quit MtG). That style isn't just that the mana cost is one too low (though such a thing can enable or disable the style in a given set) it's that you're denying agency to your opponent. Similarly with LoL, some of the characters you mention have hard CC or insta-kill move sets if given a tiny bit of help/slack from ally/opponent team. They don't outplay the opponent face to face, they just kill you dead without interaction.

Anti-fun in 40K is usually giving your opponent a lack of options (like having countering strats), giving a no-good-odds scenario (like having an obviously undercosted list), or a gimmick that just isn't interactive (shooting more than a quarter of a list off the board in top of T1). Sure, you can get an easy consistent win by playing the best list against unprepared opponents. There's a phrase for that. Idk why it seems like I'm in the minority for enjoying surmountable challenges.

In 40K there doesn't need to be that level of imbalance to make some armies/units just hopeless against others and thus unfun. That's on GW. A list with poor synergy, lack of win condition, exposed weaknesses are all on the player. Poor placement, risks taken, strats overlooked is all on player.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Imagine considering codex count compared to being the overall most competitive army in the history of the game, especially when you also have third party bitz to make up for whatever lack of models you want to complain about from almighty GW.

Yeah, Eldar players are entitled. Literallg no sympathy for them.

So...Eldar players are entitled because they were OP and you had no fun playing against them five years ago? Including the people who weren't playing then, or the people who didn't buy six flyers to play the broken build in 8th, or the people who just want the infantry that have sucked for fifteen years to stop being terrible?

Is this part of the "there's one incredibly powerful build in your Codex, stop complaining!" thing that makes people say GK are in a fine place right now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
...I'll take an eldar army with a half dozen different sets of codices, new aspect units every year, a whole slew of exarch plastic models, new warlock types and new grav tank variants...

*dreamy sigh*

 AnomanderRake wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Imagine considering codex count compared to being the overall most competitive army in the history of the game, especially when you also have third party bitz to make up for whatever lack of models you want to complain about from almighty GW.

Yeah, Eldar players are entitled. Literallg no sympathy for them.

So...Eldar players are entitled because they were OP and you had no fun playing against them five years ago? Including the people who weren't playing then, or the people who didn't buy six flyers to play the broken build in 8th, or the people who just want the infantry that have sucked for fifteen years to stop being terrible?

Is this part of the "there's one incredibly powerful build in your Codex, stop complaining!" thing that makes people say GK are in a fine place right now?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hellebore wrote:
...I'll take an eldar army with a half dozen different sets of codices, new aspect units every year, a whole slew of exarch plastic models, new warlock types and new grav tank variants...

*dreamy sigh*

Eldar have ALWAYS been OP outside 5th, when they were overall just an upper mid tier army. Yes the players are entitled, and no I don't care if Marines have 7 Supplements that's literally part of the problem with bloat in the game.

Also you have 3rd party sources so your mantra "but muh models" is a poor excuse to use.

I have heard many times that Eldar players are entitled, but never seen it. I have never seen any particular group of players act entitled for that matter. Specific individuals? Absolutely. But a trend among a certain army? Not at all.

If I was asked for a trend I'd have to say marine players being tired of their own army's releases. That's unique to the faction!

My favorite is when SM players yell at Eldar players for being entitled and OP in current or past editions The irony just seems to flow right over them.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
...Eldar have ALWAYS been OP outside 5th, when they were overall just an upper mid tier army. Yes the players are entitled, and no I don't care if Marines have 7 Supplements that's literally part of the problem with bloat in the game.

Also you have 3rd party sources so your mantra "but muh models" is a poor excuse to use.

Back up a step. Eldar have had OP builds in the past and people make third-party models, therefore they have no right to complain about anything?

With the argument "but there's 3rd Party minis for you" even Squat - players should be happy right now. Which shows how worthless it is.

Saying the army has been OP also has nothing to do with people wanting new sculpts or their infantry to not be terrible.

6 flyers was bs in 8th? That's not very useful for people who want to play an Aspect Warrior and Wraith army. It's not very useful for Ulthwe players.

The only actual entitlement I've seen in 40k ever has been, funnily enough, from Marine players and that's only because there's so many of them so any idiots like that are more obviously seen. I think my favourite was a Space Wolf player saying that his army was neglected and hated by GW because the troops were from 2009, completely oblivious to the fact that the majority of non-Marine armies at that point had older sculpts and fewer overall releases. It's the same kind of person who back in January 2020 would have said that Iron Hands were fine, or that Salamanders at the start of 9th were underpowered. These people live on a different fething planet and there's no point in engaging with them.

The ignore button is your friend!

 Void__Dragon wrote:
Plenty of people in League get pissed off at you for playing something perceived as "overpowered", which is to say any high skill-cap high damage usually attack damage character like Yasuo, Zed, Riven, or whoever.

Considering how "vocal" that community is about criticizing players who they see at fault for losing the game, people are like ten to a hundred times more likely to insult my parents or my assumed lifestyle than blame me for picking a powerful champion.

I can't believe the way this thread went. So its ok for marines to literally blot out the sun with releases and rules yet if an army was or is OP it's fine they get pretty much ignored ?

When I was young, I can agree I loved to see over powered armies suffer eventually, but as you get older you realize it isn't the players fault, maybe the GW should learn how to actually make balanced rules. Maybe everyone should have equal model support and rules, that is really all anyone is asking for.

I don't even play Eldar btw but i'd love for people to get fair treatment for the armies we all spend lots of time and money on.

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i guess our experiences vary a lot then.
I'm a control player and everytime i'd show up at FNM when control was strong, people would personally attack me and tell me that I was the reason the game sucked.
I've seen the same happen with Tron/Blitz/Scapeshift and all that. The complaint is two-part, "Why doenst WotC ban the deck" and "Why are you abusing the deck"

I have attended hundreds of events and played tens of thousands of games of MtG on two continents, and never once did someone blame me personally for playing a particular deck unless it's taking a multiplayer game to a grinding halt. People do ask you to take a different deck/to not play against a specific deck from time to time, but that's a completely different level from people outright throwing a tantrum or even dropping from games because you brought three of some unit they perceive as powerful.
And yes, control and extremely fast combos are notoriously unfun to play against because it can turn into a non-game. It's not hard to understand that people want more out of their game night than drawing, passing and shuffling.

For lol its the same thing really, "why are you abusing yi/kat/zed/yas in low elo".

Yeah, no. That's just people trying to find a reason besides themselves for why their team is losing. People complain about champions, items, riot or straight up insult you. But getting blamed for picking a champion? That's extremely rare. And I'm absolutely sure that there are no whole threads in gaming communities complaining about people picking certain champions, unlike for 40k.
Most of the champions that people complain about aren't even powerful, they are just too bad to understand how to counter them. Cue team running away from a Master Yi/Zed in panic instead of just turning around and nuking him. Oh, and you can just ban them.
And really, I haven't been ranked above silver in years, but how low do you need drop these days so people start to complain in ranked about trying to win?

Its the same complaint i see with 40k. "Eradicators are op, why are you abusing them"

The actual 40k complaints are more like "Oh, you have finished painting the contents of the indomitus box and fielded them as part of a black templars list and beat my incoherent eldar list to which I applied random limitations according to my head-canon? Total TFG WAAC netlist! You are ruining the great hobby GW has given us! GW has never meant 40k to be played that way! I shall look for a new group to play, burn all bridges with you and never engage with such a level of toxicity ever again! 40k is the best game in the world if you take an old edition and rewrite half of it and only play it against three other people who like the exact same things you do!"*

*Hyperbole

 Jidmah wrote:

 VladimirHerzog wrote:
i guess our experiences vary a lot then.
I'm a control player and everytime i'd show up at FNM when control was strong, people would personally attack me and tell me that I was the reason the game sucked.
I've seen the same happen with Tron/Blitz/Scapeshift and all that. The complaint is two-part, "Why doenst WotC ban the deck" and "Why are you abusing the deck"

I have attended hundreds of events and played tens of thousands of games of MtG on two continents, and never once did someone blame me personally for playing a particular deck unless it's taking a multiplayer game to a grinding halt. People do ask you to take a different deck/to not play against a specific deck from time to time, but that's a completely different level from people outright throwing a tantrum or even dropping from games because you brought three of some unit they perceive as powerful.
And yes, control and extremely fast combos are notoriously unfun to play against because it can turn into a non-game. It's not hard to understand that people want more out of their game night than drawing, passing and shuffling.

For lol its the same thing really, "why are you abusing yi/kat/zed/yas in low elo".

Yeah, no. That's just people trying to find a reason besides themselves for why their team is losing. People complain about champions, items, riot or straight up insult you. But getting blamed for picking a champion? That's extremely rare. And I'm absolutely sure that there are no whole threads in gaming communities complaining about people picking certain champions, unlike for 40k.
Most of the champions that people complain about aren't even powerful, they are just too bad to understand how to counter them. Cue team running away from a Master Yi/Zed in panic instead of just turning around and nuking him. Oh, and you can just ban them.
And really, I haven't been ranked above silver in years, but how low do you need drop these days so people start to complain in ranked about trying to win?

Its the same complaint i see with 40k. "Eradicators are op, why are you abusing them"

The actual 40k complaints are more like "Oh, you have finished painting the contents of the indomitus box and fielded them as part of a black templars list and beat my incoherent eldar list? Total TFG WAAC netlist! You are ruining the great hobby GW has given us! GW has never meant 40k to be played that way! I shall look for a new group to play, burn all bridges with you and never engage with such a level of toxicity ever again! 40k is the best game in the world if you take an old edition and rewrite half of it and only play it against three other people who like the exact same things you do!"*

*Hyperbole

You're comparing structured ranked e-sports games to a casual throwdown between friends in a tabletop game. As you say one has bans, years of stable development, millions playing daily with instant stats and anonymous instant matchmaking. The other is some people arranging to rocking up beforehand who can then chat before something that will take a few hours of the time in person.

In the latter if the expectations aren't spelled out then it leads to these sorts of threads, especially in a situation where you have open discourse with your opponent pre-game. In LoL/any moba you know what you're signing up for when you hit the queue button, especially if playing ranked.

No this isn't the magical "victim complex" you seem to think keeps happening, it's just an attempt to highlight this isn't a finely balanced e-sports game and there is every opportunity to iron out these problems pre-game if that's what the players want.

 AngryAngel80 wrote:
I can't believe the way this thread went. So its ok for marines to literally blot out the sun with releases and rules yet if an army was or is OP it's fine they get pretty much ignored ?

Marine players think that way, because they are entitled. Simple as that.

You're comparing structured ranked e-sports games to a casual throwdown between friends in a tabletop game. As you say one has bans, years of stable development, millions playing daily with instant stats and anonymous instant matchmaking. The other is some people arranging to rocking up beforehand who can then chat before something that will take a few hours of the time in person.

In the latter if the expectations aren't spelled out then it leads to these sorts of threads, especially in a situation where you have open discourse with your opponent pre-game. In LoL/any moba you know what you're signing up for when you hit the queue button, especially if playing ranked.

No this isn't the magical "victim complex" you seem to think keeps happening, it's just an attempt to highlight this isn't a finely balanced e-sports game and there is every opportunity to iron out these problems pre-game if that's what the players want.

So, what is your excuse for GW still not having reached the same level of rules-writing and balance that WotC had already reached 20 years ago?

On the timeline of MtG's evolution, 40k is somewhere in 1997.

Dudeface wrote:
it's just an attempt to highlight this isn't a finely balanced e-sports game and there is every opportunity to iron out these problems pre-game if that's what the players want.

The reason 40k isn't finely balanced is because GW decides to regularly change up the rules/add more rules and start balancing all over again, whilst paying minimum attention to balance considerations in the process.

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
it's just an attempt to highlight this isn't a finely balanced e-sports game and there is every opportunity to iron out these problems pre-game if that's what the players want.

The reason 40k isn't finely balanced is because GW decides to regularly change up the rules/add more rules and start balancing all over again, whilst paying minimum attention to balance considerations in the process.

To be fair, both WotC and Riot do that for their respective games and both also feth that up regularly as well. The discussion was about the mindset of the player base though.

 Jidmah wrote:

 kirotheavenger wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
it's just an attempt to highlight this isn't a finely balanced e-sports game and there is every opportunity to iron out these problems pre-game if that's what the players want.

The reason 40k isn't finely balanced is because GW decides to regularly change up the rules/add more rules and start balancing all over again, whilst paying minimum attention to balance considerations in the process.

To be fair, both WotC and Riot do that for their respective games and both also feth that up regularly as well. The discussion was about the mindset of the player base though.

If that is the case why does:

So, what is your excuse for GW still not having reached the same level of rules-writing and balance that WotC had already reached 20 years ago?

enter the conversation?

I have no excuse, they're evidently not the best at it. But if I want to ensure my random collection of casual crap doesn't get face stomped by the newest meta army, I am capable of asking my opponent what they're intending and shaping the tone of the game.

In LoL you can't ask the enemy team before the game starts whether they want to practice for ranked or if they're just picking fun stuff etc.

Do you keep picking LoL as an example because you don't know MtG well enough, or do you keep dodging the question because you dislike the answer?

Jidmah wrote:Do you keep picking LoL as an example because you don't know MtG well enough, or do you keep dodging the question because you dislike the answer?

Dudeface wrote:
I have no excuse, they're evidently not the best at it.

I admittedly have limited knowledge of MtG but I'm pretty sure the cards don't have to work in a 3 dimensional real world space and writing rules based on combos and other card interactions must be easier than trying to balance around movement etc.

What I want to know is why you're so against people moderating their own games when it's fairly effortless to do so.

I'm firmly of the belief 40k can never be as balanced as a card game and probably not as balanced as video game, there are too many variables in the game presently to manage it to the levels people expect.

Because it's not effortless to moderate your own games, at all.
It requires a community of gamers all with the same outlook on the game.
I used to live in a small town, 40k players in total was about 8, and that had split into two smaller groups due to differences in personality.
If you didn't fit into either of those two groups in that town, you wouldn't be able to play a 40k the way you like. Sucks to be you I guess, you never should have invested £hundreds.

Plus, I want to be able to build an army the way I want with what I want without having to worry about if my favourite unit is too meta at the moment and I need to not take.

I actually agree that 40k can never be as balanced as a cardgame, mostly because 40k has expanded to the point where there's such vastly difference armies.
How are you supposed to balance Orks vs Knights vs Space Marines?
But that doesn't mean it can't be significantly better than it is now, and that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't need to be balanced.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Because it's not effortless to moderate your own games, at all.
It requires a community of gamers all with the same outlook on the game.
I used to live in a small town, 40k players in total was about 8, and that had split into two smaller groups due to differences in personality.
If you didn't fit into either of those two groups in that town, you wouldn't be able to play a 40k the way you like. Sucks to be you I guess, you never should have invested £hundreds.

Plus, I want to be able to build an army the way I want with what I want without having to worry about if my favourite unit is too meta at the moment and I need to not take.

I actually agree that 40k can never be as balanced as a cardgame, mostly because 40k has expanded to the point where there's such vastly difference armies.
How are you supposed to balance Orks vs Knights vs Space Marines?
But that doesn't mean it can't be significantly better than it is now, and that certainly doesn't mean it doesn't need to be balanced.

I don't disagree, it certainly could be better balanced and should be. It'd be lovely to be able to just take any list and be comfy knowing you'll get a fair game. Sadly it's not there yet though and what's left is the option to talk to people. Even if you know they play more competitively or w/e at least you can adjust your lists slightly and you're not caught by surprise.

People don't discuss what they can do about a problem they generally just complain it isn't fixed for them by GW. We can all agree every unit should be balanced and that GW needs to do better really but that isn't going to happen over night.

Perhaps that's because people do discuss what their games and come to agree on a common gaming direction (or leave the group/hobby entirely).
But people would rather discuss the cause of an issue rather than they ad-hoc solution they've been forced to come up with as a result of GW's incompetence/uncaring attitude to said problem?

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Perhaps that's because people do discuss what their games and come to agree on a common gaming direction (or leave the group/hobby entirely).
But people would rather discuss the cause of an issue rather than they ad-hoc solution they've been forced to come up with as a result of GW's incompetence/uncaring attitude to said problem?

Well the cause is GW haven't done a good enough job, there's not really anything to discuss is there?

Well, technically you can start fix up things in your local community, that takes long though and requires a whole slew of cooperation.
Further it has the issue of beeing exclusive to a group which can stiffle growth of a community alot.

Dudeface wrote:
I admittedly have limited knowledge of MtG but I'm pretty sure the cards don't have to work in a 3 dimensional real world space and writing rules based on combos and other card interactions must be easier than trying to balance around movement etc.

That's just another excuse to suck at writing rules. All the steps that took WotC to professionalize their game development process could easily be adapted by GW for 40k if they wanted. The third dimension.
The only thing which GW really has as an excuse is that playtesting games takes a bit more effort because games take longer and testing new models is a bit more tricky than slapping a sticker on an existing card.

What I want to know is why you're so against people moderating their own games when it's fairly effortless to do so.

Because it's unnecessary. The only reason why I have to do it is because GW didn't do their job, and now I have to do it for them.
A game which such clearly defined boundaries as 40k should not need this amount of moderation. All that should be required is agreeing on a mission pack, game size and on whether you are playing "though" or "soft" lists. That's all it takes to have a game of MtG, after all.

I'm firmly of the belief 40k can never be as balanced as a card game and probably not as balanced as video game, there are too many variables in the game presently to manage it to the levels people expect.

Refer to my signature for my opinion on "firm believes".
The complexity of 40k is ridiculously low compared to video games and there is sufficient data to balance the game against.
The two main reason why they improve so slowly is
a) lack of experience (they literally begun understanding their own game somewhen during 8th)
b) slow iteration speed because of the paper medium

You also are a proof of the whole phenomenon: Despite you admitting that GW did a bad job, you still somehow see the players being responsible to make the best of it. Literally no other gaming community does this.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
I admittedly have limited knowledge of MtG but I'm pretty sure the cards don't have to work in a 3 dimensional real world space and writing rules based on combos and other card interactions must be easier than trying to balance around movement etc.

That's just another excuse to suck at writing rules. All the steps that took WotC to professionalize their game development process could easily be adapted by GW for 40k if they wanted. The third dimension.
The only thing which GW really has as an excuse is that playtesting games takes a bit more effort because games take longer and testing new models is a bit more tricky than slapping a sticker on an existing card.

What I want to know is why you're so against people moderating their own games when it's fairly effortless to do so.

Because it's unnecessary. The only reason why I have to do it is because GW didn't do their job, and now I have to do it for them.
A game which such clearly defined boundaries as 40k should not need this amount of moderation. All that should be required is agreeing on a mission pack, game size and on whether you are playing "though" or "soft" lists. That's all it takes to have a game of MtG, after all.

I'm firmly of the belief 40k can never be as balanced as a card game and probably not as balanced as video game, there are too many variables in the game presently to manage it to the levels people expect.

Refer to my signature for my opinion on "firm believes".
The complexity of 40k is ridiculously low compared to video games and there is sufficient data to balance the game against.
The two main reason why they improve so slowly is
a) lack of experience (they literally begun understanding their own game somewhen during 8th)
b) slow iteration speed because of the paper medium

You also are a proof of the whole phenomenon: Despite you admitting that GW did a bad job, you still somehow see the players being responsible to make the best of it. Literally no other gaming community does this.

Well your options are otherwise: be unhappy and bitch about it online, or try and make something work with your opponents.

I don't see other players as responsible for balancing the game, I see myself as responsible for making sure the 3 hour investment I have with someone is what I'm expecting.

For all your comments about doing GW's job for them, all the complaints they're not doing a good job etc. what is it actually accomplishing?

Dudeface wrote:
Well your options are otherwise: be unhappy and bitch about it online,

Oh, now pointing out flaws in the game is "bitching"?
Good talk, I suggest you stop "bitching" online and go away from the screen to reflect why you had to resort to ad hominem attacks when trying to defend a clearly flawed product from justified criticism.

or try and make something work with your opponents.

The point of this discussion is that in the 40k community it is normal to attack said opponents and blame them for when you can't make it work for whatever reason, when the one at fault is clearly GW.

For all your comments about doing GW's job for them, all the complaints they're not doing a good job etc. what is it actually accomplishing?

I don't know, I'm spending time on dakka to pass my time, while you apparently do so to make yourself feel miserable? I'm sorry, I don't believe in showering people or company in praise where none is due.

Saga of the Beast, War of the Spider? Great stuff. Rules writing in 9th? Not perfect, but getting better. General balance right now? Not good. It's as simple as that.

 Jidmah wrote:

Dudeface wrote:
Well your options are otherwise: be unhappy and bitch about it online,

Oh, now pointing out flaws in the game is "bitching"?
Good talk, I suggest you stop "bitching" online and go away from the screen to reflect why you had to resort to ad hominem attacks when trying to defend a clearly flawed product from justified criticism.

or try and make something work with your opponents.

The point of this discussion is that in the 40k community it is normal to attack said opponents and blame them for when you can't make it work for whatever reason, when the one at fault is clearly GW.

For all your comments about doing GW's job for them, all the complaints they're not doing a good job etc. what is it actually accomplishing?

I don't know, I'm spending time on dakka to pass my time, while you apparently do so to make yourself feel miserable? I'm sorry, I don't believe in showering people or company in praise where none is due.

Saga of the Beast, War of the Spider? Great stuff. Rules writing in 9th? Not perfect, but getting better. General balance right now? Not good. It's as simple as that.

So to clarify, there is a universal unspoken truth that general balance is bad right now, that GW is doing a poor job. Yet we manage as a community 16 pages of re-phrasing those same points in a cyclical self sustaining manner.

You've deemed it unreasonable to act on this as a community, leaving the only course of action to consistently re-tell one another how bad of a job they're doing and thus rendering almost any conversation on the topic pointless.

Dakka as a forum needs a dedicated area people can just complain and fulfil that need I think, it's also against forum rules which is why we end up with these tangential threads.

Edit: you're right though, the community online does actually make me miserable through one means or another, so I think I'm quitting. I'll probably lurk still but I'm randomising my password and signing out.

Sorry, took me a while to drag myself away from my furious letter writing to GW demanding OP stuff for my beloved Eldar.
Have faith children of Asur, the pitiful Mon-keigh in the rules writing team always listen to me, our day of salvation is at hand!