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.

I'm guessing death guard will get no penalty for moving when firing heavy weapons as well. The regular Marine has 6" move? If Tsons has 5" move then and probably DG Also gets 5" move. If this is the chase, it's a pretty big nerf for DG. They used to be able to walk 6", fire heavy-/rapid fire weapons with no penalty, then charge(relentless) when most other marines could walk 6", shoot with -3 to hit(snap shots) for heavy-/rapid fire weapons and not being able to charge. Now all marines gets -1 and can charge after shooting heavy-/rapid fire weapons.

So basically DG only get -1" move and +1 when firing heavy weapons. Huge nerf.

 killerpenguin wrote:
I'm guessing death guard will get no penalty for moving when firing heavy weapons as well. The regular Marine has 6" move? If Tsons has 5" move then and probably DG Also gets 5" move. If this is the chase, it's a pretty big nerf for DG. They used to be able to walk 6", fire heavy-/rapid fire weapons with no penalty, then charge(relentless) when most other marines could walk 6", shoot with -3 to hit(snap shots) for heavy-/rapid fire weapons and not being able to charge.

I imagine to counteract this "nerf", they will have clouds of pestilence or something so nearby enemy units get debuffed.

 Flood wrote:
So, this was the one area that I was concerned about in terms of how they would go about re-balancing the game. I am totally fine with different systems at play for narrative/competitive, so the power levels are not a concern.

I am however disappointed they did not wipe the slate clean and give us a simple and intuitive points system, where you can look at a stat line and clearly determine how they arrived at that value for a unit/weapon/etc.

Marines, assumedly being the baseline for their balance, are 13pts. How did they arrive at this figure? It seems somewhat arbitrary and based solely on what 'feels' right given the past context for the unit value in their aged game system, rather than the end result of a formula.
If everything else is determined from this baseline, we yet again have a system of values that are appointed by educated guesses, rather than a strict method. This way lies imbalance.

I'm genuinely looking forward to everything I've seen thus far, but I am pessimistic about how game balance is to be maintained.

Totally formula based balancing is just a flawed, only for different reasons. I will say that being able to see HOW they came to the conclusion that things are worth what they're worth would be valuable.

 Flood wrote:
So, this was the one area that I was concerned about in terms of how they would go about re-balancing the game. I am totally fine with different systems at play for narrative/competitive, so the power levels are not a concern.

I am however disappointed they did not wipe the slate clean and give us a simple and intuitive points system, where you can look at a stat line and clearly determine how they arrived at that value for a unit/weapon/etc.

Marines, assumedly being the baseline for their balance, are 13pts. How did they arrive at this figure? It seems somewhat arbitrary and based solely on what 'feels' right given the past context for the unit value in their aged game system, rather than the end result of a formula.
If everything else is determined from this baseline, we yet again have a system of values that are appointed by educated guesses, rather than a strict method. This way lies imbalance.

I'm genuinely looking forward to everything I've seen thus far, but I am pessimistic about how game balance is to be maintained.

You can't balance a game of this complexity with a formula. What's the relative value of a point of Move or a point of BS? On an Assault termie? On a Fire Warrior? The level of intuitive understanding of the game required to even construct a formula makes the formula unnecessary.

You can't balance it at this low of points

 Flood wrote:
So, this was the one area that I was concerned about in terms of how they would go about re-balancing the game. I am totally fine with different systems at play for narrative/competitive, so the power levels are not a concern.

I am however disappointed they did not wipe the slate clean and give us a simple and intuitive points system, where you can look at a stat line and clearly determine how they arrived at that value for a unit/weapon/etc.

Marines, assumedly being the baseline for their balance, are 13pts. How did they arrive at this figure? It seems somewhat arbitrary and based solely on what 'feels' right given the past context for the unit value in their aged game system, rather than the end result of a formula.
If everything else is determined from this baseline, we yet again have a system of values that are appointed by educated guesses, rather than a strict method. This way lies imbalance.

I'm genuinely looking forward to everything I've seen thus far, but I am pessimistic about how game balance is to be maintained.

It's kind of hard to say that it wasn't arrived at by any objective means when we have no points of comparison.

Just look at a transparent point system like Infinity's. The only reason it is transparent is because I have hundreds of examples and I can cross-reference those to determine and predict what something should cost.

GW have given us a single trooper profiles cost, and two weapons that we haven't stats for yet. So yeah, they'll seem arbitrary because we can only get a point of reference in a given point system if we can compare.

May turn out that it still is arbitrary, but it is kind of impossible to know that from what we've been given. Hell, even if we got the full cost of a tactical squad and all of its options, we wouldn't have context as to what it all means until we see at least one or two more squads to know what relative things should be worth.

Way too early to tell how or why things cost what they do and whether or not there is a new point system or if things have been hand-tweaked. Basically, GW are still tapdancing around giving us full context and I doubt this will change before release. We can't even use the revealed power levels of tacticals and rubrics to reverse engineer what we think the differences might be because we don't even have context to know whether power level is based directly on an abstract version of points or not!

We're still basically in the dark here.

More than likely points aren't based per model, but per unit.

I realised this when I was working on my vehicle/monstrous creature design rules update. I then started working on infantry and discovered their points system was based on the unit.

Is Marines any pay points for a bolter, bolt pistol, and grenades. A unit of them does. Any upgrades taken are paid for with a standardised system to cover the versatility granted by said weapon.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
More than likely points aren't based per model, but per unit.

I realised this when I was working on my vehicle/monstrous creature design rules update. I then started working on infantry and discovered their points system was based on the unit.

Is Marines any pay points for a bolter, bolt pistol, and grenades. A unit of them does. Any upgrades taken are paid for with a standardised system to cover the versatility granted by said weapon.

Spoiler:

Built a d10 "create a unit" universal wargame using this concept instead of attempting to crack the entire code of gw

Rubrics run entirely contrary to that.

ERJAK wrote:
I will say that being able to see HOW they came to the conclusion that things are worth what they're worth would be valuable.

I can see the logic others have pointed out, that the complexity of the game and variables render a static formula unusable, thank you for the replies and considered thoughts.
I too would dearly like to see how they arrived at the current values, if only to feel more confident in their perception of how the game is balanced.
Hopefully the power level system also works competently for quick match-ups that scale well.
Encouraged to read that they are more open to tweaking balance without affecting core rules/stats also.

From the looks of it, so far, units that used to have rules like Relentless or Slow And Purposeful have just been given a slower speed. Whether or not Rapid Fire and Heavy Weapons prevent Charging will help determine that as well. Obviously that mindset doesn't work across the board because several fast units like Death Company and Space Marine Bikes had Relentless, so a slow move on them would make zero sense. I really wish GW would come out and say if Rapid Fire or Heavy prevents charging. If it does, expect things like Terminators and Bikes to have a bespoke rule that bypasses that.

 casvalremdeikun wrote:
From the looks of it, so far, units that used to have rules like Relentless or Slow And Purposeful have just been given a slower speed. Whether or not Rapid Fire and Heavy Weapons prevent Charging will help determine that as well. Obviously that mindset doesn't work across the board because several fast units like Death Company and Space Marine Bikes had Relentless, so a slow move on them would make zero sense. I really wish GW would come out and say if Rapid Fire or Heavy prevents charging. If it does, expect things like Terminators and Bikes to have a bespoke rule that bypasses that.

The Rubric keyword could remove their ability to overwatch. Although maybe not...the Thousand Sons keyword likely wouldn't either. Hmm that could be quite nice.

 Lysenis wrote:
You can't balance it at this low of points

It does not have to.

The power level caters to the Non-Competitive player. You know the guy (Like me) who just likes to show up and blow the of each other. This makes it so he can pull out a 50-100 point army, place it in his Army Bag and show up to just have some fun win or lose. He might no what he will face when he walks out the door, but he knows the two forces will be in the same neighborhood of power.

You want competitive go to detailed points.

 killerpenguin wrote:
I'm guessing death guard will get no penalty for moving when firing heavy weapons as well. The regular Marine has 6" move? If Tsons has 5" move then and probably DG Also gets 5" move. If this is the chase, it's a pretty big nerf for DG. They used to be able to walk 6", fire heavy-/rapid fire weapons with no penalty, then charge(relentless) when most other marines could walk 6", shoot with -3 to hit(snap shots) for heavy-/rapid fire weapons and not being able to charge. Now all marines gets -1 and can charge after shooting heavy-/rapid fire weapons.

So basically DG only get -1" move and +1 when firing heavy weapons. Huge nerf.

So they'll probably drop in points to compensate.

Also I imaginenthe Blight Head Grenades might deny charging units the ability to go auto-first, or be throwable to muck with anothermunit,s ability to shoot or something.

Daedalus81 wrote:

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:
More than likely points aren't based per model, but per unit.

I realised this when I was working on my vehicle/monstrous creature design rules update. I then started working on infantry and discovered their points system was based on the unit.

Is Marines any pay points for a bolter, bolt pistol, and grenades. A unit of them does. Any upgrades taken are paid for with a standardised system to cover the versatility granted by said weapon.

Spoiler:

Built a d10 "create a unit" universal wargame using this concept instead of attempting to crack the entire code of gw

Rubrics run entirely contrary to that.

How so? Do they all come unequipped with weapons and you buy them singularly with a base unit size of 1?
The rubric marines paid for relentless, ap3 weapons, defense, and fearless as a unit. Any upgrades are done on a per model basis.

Lythrandire Biehrellian wrote:

How so? Do they all come unequipped with weapons and you buy them singularly with a base unit size of 1?
The rubric marines paid for relentless, ap3 weapons, defense, and fearless as a unit. Any upgrades are done on a per model basis.

Yea I misread your comment - ignore me.

theocracity wrote:

ERJAK wrote:

Spoiler:

tneva82 wrote:

Daedalus81 wrote:

tneva82 wrote:

They mentioned in the article running Ambush with Power, so it's possible some mission types won't be balanced around points but power.

Narrative missions won't be even. Matched play will be.

You can have 2000 pts vs 1500 just as easily as 10 power level vs 75. It's just 2 point systems. No inheritent difference. One is just more granular.

People have used uneven points for decades. How 8th ed points would be less suited for that?

The difference between the 2 is that one takes up to 15 minutes and a helper program to do properly and the other you can do in less than a minute off the top of your head.

Basically if you didn't print off your list before you left, powerlevel is a godsend.

It also doesn't prompt the same level of anxiety during the construction and painting phase of army building. If there's an upgrade that I want to build because it looks cool, I don't get stymied by worries that the upgrade isn't points-efficient and uncompetitive. Anything that reduces potential barriers to play a game are great in my book. I've got enough on my plate in life that I don't need extra things to futz with prior to gaming during the brief opportunities I get to do so.

I'm actually kind of excited to try power level games for the same reason. When you're working with points efficiency in mind it's nearly impossible to satisfy the side-urge for "just so" neatness/cool factor.

Like, I might love to have two tidy units of 10x Genestealers. But a must-have upgrade on my Hive Tyrant might force me to settle on one unit of 8x Genestealers and one unit of 9x Genestealers. The army works better, but doesn't hit that sweet-spot of symmetry/intangible coolness.

 killerpenguin wrote:

So basically DG only get -1" move and +1 when firing heavy weapons. Huge nerf.

And this conclusion is based purely on gak you made up and assumed rather than any actual information.

I'll leave the doomsaying until we've seen the actual rules.

Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer

Smite Psychic Power

Asurman's Sword of Asur

Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase

While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?

Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.

The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.

Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer

Smite Psychic Power

Asurman's Sword of Asur

Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase

While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?

Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.

The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.

Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.

If someone kills a titan with Mandiblasters I'm going to assume they assaulted inside of the thing, and killed the crew with them. </headcanon>

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer

Smite Psychic Power

Asurman's Sword of Asur

Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase

While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?

Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.

The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.

Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.

If someone kills a titan with Mandiblasters I'm going to assume they assaulted inside of the thing, and killed the crew with them. </headcanon>

Isn't that how every Titan dies to infantry?

 Lysenis wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer

Smite Psychic Power

Asurman's Sword of Asur

Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase

While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?

Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.

The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.

Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.

If someone kills a titan with Mandiblasters I'm going to assume they assaulted inside of the thing, and killed the crew with them. </headcanon>

Isn't that how every Titan dies to infantry?

Yeah, depends on how much damage was done to it first, which the new degenerating effect on vehicles represents. Maybe something managed to expose the core, which a lucky shot off managed to hit.

 Lysenis wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer

Smite Psychic Power

Asurman's Sword of Asur

Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase

While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?

Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.

The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.

Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.

If someone kills a titan with Mandiblasters I'm going to assume they assaulted inside of the thing, and killed the crew with them. </headcanon>

Isn't that how every Titan dies to infantry?

It is the more fluff appropiate answer: they get aboard and kill the crew or sabotage the reactor, or generally break it frommthe inside.

I figured if we want to get cramky about it, I'm just going to fluff it in my head that they got inside on teir charge and made a mess there instead of on the outside. At least it makes sense and is as fluffy as this unicorn:

 JohnnyHell wrote:
A ground-up rewrite is hardly reactionary. Rather, it seems considered and closing an obvious imbalance loophole.

That's not what I said. What I said was that changing the rule to the polar opposite seems reactionary, as if no attempt to find a middle ground was found.

All dancing, all summoning was an obvious bad, But is the exact opposite that an obvious good? Were Tervigons tearing up the tournament scene? Were a few extra bases of Scarabs ruining the lives of everyone who fought Necrons?

Not every problem requires the sledgehammer approach.

And what about the Ork Warboss that killed a Titan runing trought his face with his bike. Hm? What about that?! Isn't that fluffy enough?!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Lysenis wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Spoiler:

 alextroy wrote:
Here's a thought I've been having about the Mortal Wounds controversy. So far, we have been told of three sources of Mortal Wounds in NuHammer

Smite Psychic Power

Asurman's Sword of Asur

Maniblasters that hit at the beginning of the Fight Phase

While the sword is simply a case of a weapon dealing Mortal Wounds (Automatically, Hit, Wound, or a specific roll to Hit or Wound is unknown), the other two appear to be cases of damage being done outside of the normal damage dealing phases (Shooting and Fight). Could it be that GW has decided to simplify those instances of damage by just having these actions deal Mortal Wounds?

Compare Smite (one roll to cast, one roll to deal damage) to an 7th Edition Witchfire power (Roll to cast, roll of Random number of attacks, roll to Hit, roll to Wound, Roll Save). That's two rolls (3 if you include the Deny the Witch) instead of 5 (6 with DTW). Talk about a time saving.

The same could hold true for Maniblasters. I'm sure it's probably something simple like a unit of Striking Scorpions deal 1dx Mortal Wounds (or roll 1d6 per SS and deal a MW on a roll of 5+) to a unit it is engaged with at the start of the Fight Phase before any units attack. That's one roll rather than three spent on Hit, Wound, Save.

Sure, this is less granular than the rules of old and leads to oddities (let's take down that Titan with Maniblaster Mortal Wounds), but it will certainly speed up the game.

If someone kills a titan with Mandiblasters I'm going to assume they assaulted inside of the thing, and killed the crew with them. </headcanon>

Isn't that how every Titan dies to infantry?

It is the more fluff appropiate answer: they get aboard and kill the crew or sabotage the reactor, or generally break it frommthe inside.

I figured if we want to get cramky about it, I'm just going to fluff it in my head that they got inside on teir charge and made a mess there instead of on the outside. At least it makes sense and is as fluffy as this unicorn:

In other words that a what they get for letting infantry in close. I do remember what was it Titanicus... What's that the Hours Heresy Titan book? That book brought up the need for ground troops.

On a side note, that is also my fluff for a War pin Spider kill since everything can hurt everything

 Galas wrote:
And what about the Ork Warboss that killed a Titan runing trought his face with his bike. Hm? What about that?! Isn't that fluffy enough?!

What story did that happen in? That's sounds amazing!

 Galas wrote:
And what about the Ork Warboss that killed a Titan runing trought his face with his bike. Hm? What about that?! Isn't that fluffy enough?!

Clearly the crew died to his Impact Hits. Also it's only fluffy enough if he keeps the still burning skulls of the crew as trophies on his bike.

I can't believe I'm saying this, but...I'm cautiously optimistic about this new 40k, as I'm hearing a lot of the right things from these previews. If Power Levels are much like the points in Warmachine (units have fixed numbers and equipment, points are less granular) then I could even see that being a valid way to play.

It's going to depend - what killed 40k for me before is excessive randomness and die rolling (as it can reduce player agency and slow the game down), complete departure from the background in terms of army building (thanks to the insanity of flyers, titans and allies), and the complete disregard for any kind of balance (which I don't think anyone would debate). The latter sounds like it is being addressed (though whether this the usual pendulum swing remains to be seen), and it seems that thanks to the new vehicle rules, Knights et al won't be so utterly untouchable by 'standard' arms so perhaps their prevalence will lessen. The fact that random charge ranges seem to have stuck, though, bodes poorly for the first problem.

I'm unlikely to come back with my wallet open (been burned one too many times), but I can honestly envision playing this new 40k with the many armies I already own - and I would openly admit to being one of the biggest GW cynics I know.

I genuinely hope it pans out this time, and doesn't turn to pudding in their hands again.

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Galas wrote:
And what about the Ork Warboss that killed a Titan runing trought his face with his bike. Hm? What about that?! Isn't that fluffy enough?!

What story did that happen in? That's sounds amazing!

Wazdakka Gutsmek was the Ork in question and he was an Ork Special Character up throughh 5th edition until 6th axed any characters without models.

Still a darn good bit of lore though.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lysenis wrote:
In other words that a what they get for letting infantry in close. I do remember what was it Titanicus... What's that the Hours Heresy Titan book? That book brought up the need for ground troops.

On a side note, that is also my fluff for a War pin Spider kill since everything can hurt everything

Titanicus was an Abnett story set in "modern" 40k. I don't remember the HH book, probably haven't gotten around to it yet.

Sadly ground infantry doesn't protect against Ork Tellyportas stealing the crew out of the cockpit ala Redemption Corps.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Dakka Flakka Flame wrote:

 Galas wrote:
And what about the Ork Warboss that killed a Titan runing trought his face with his bike. Hm? What about that?! Isn't that fluffy enough?!

What story did that happen in? That's sounds amazing!

Wazdakka Gutsmek was the Ork in question and he was an Ork Special Character up throughh 5th edition until 6th axed any characters without models.

Still a darn good bit of lore though.

Thanks! They must have skipped him in 3rd Edition.