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.
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally I think they need to reintroduce a harsh penalty for falling back from combat. There needs to be some kind of counterattack or automatic damage for a unit that falls back; and don't say "well that unit can't fire or assault next turn" because in this edition that's not that much of a penalty.
Too many times I've finally gotten a unit into combat just to have the enemy run away and my unit get shot to pieces before they can do anything. Even something as simple as a "dangerous terrain" style test for retreating models, where you roll a d6 for each model retreating and for each 1 that unit takes a mortal wound would make me happy.
additionally, some factions just, well fallback and shoot anyways.
Movement value should play a role imo.
Not sure how you would make their Move stat count?
Additionally GW need's to close the "tri-point" bs
very easy:
Fallback is counted as a move, +d6 however the combatants pursue with m+d6 aswell.
High movement units which are generally expensive can tie down units that way and break battlelines.
Secondly, the unit not falling back get's a bonus round that only generates half as many hits so that falling back actually is a punishment.
Further: tripointing has to do with consolidation ruling, i have no concrete idea of that but yes something must happen. Maybee the ability to sacrifice hostages?
Maybe just "At the end of the Movement Phase, your opponent may move any units that began the phase within 1" of enemy units but no longer are. Note that these moves may end within 1" of enemy units."
That would allow faster units to tie up slower units, and prevent a speedbump backing away from CC from hiding behind what they were protecting. This makes "falling back" act like a crumbling line. It makes Guardsmen *want* to hold - if they fall back, what's killing them eats the things the Guardsmen are protecting.
Lord Clinto wrote: Personally I think they need to reintroduce a harsh penalty for falling back from combat. There needs to be some kind of counterattack or automatic damage for a unit that falls back; and don't say "well that unit can't fire or assault next turn" because in this edition that's not that much of a penalty.
Too many times I've finally gotten a unit into combat just to have the enemy run away and my unit get shot to pieces before they can do anything. Even something as simple as a "dangerous terrain" style test for retreating models, where you roll a d6 for each model retreating and for each 1 that unit takes a mortal wound would make me happy.
Yeah, they literally just need to translate overwatch to melee. Falling back, whether deliberately or because you lost combat, should be dangerous.
I personally am not a fan of "melee overwatch" for fall back. The problem with fallback is not that it's preventing damage, but rather the unit being able to leave meant your unit is very vulnerable, likely in the enemy army's double tap range and out of cover. This is also the problem is that overwatch is a lot of dice roll for not a whole lot of point, and makes a problem where being worse at it means you do more damage at it.
I'd much rather prefer that, if a unit that was in melee is no longer in melee because the other unit(s) have fallen back, then the unit can make a consolidation move. This allows for a more tactical though to if you should fallback than taking more damage since:
A) The unit could consolidate back into the unit trying to escape, if you didn't move far enough away. This prevents one inch fallbacks, which is something of a headsctracher when the artilery battery nearby is going from "The risk is too great!" to "firefirefirefirefirefirefire" (an actual reason to bring back blast plates....)
B) The unit could consolidate into another unit, which means the falling back unit has to consider if the unit stuck in melee is less important than leting the melee unit spread out into their ranks, or might force the army to spread out before falling back, giving the army with the assault units a way to displace their enemy into better positions for them. It's give melee an better Crowd Control element, rather than just being a missile that you fire at the enemy than then explodes.
C) It could allow the assault unit to move into cover or out of line of sight, as long as there's a unit they can move towards in that direction, rather than the unit hanging out in the open where the shooting army wants them to be.
D) Since it'd have to be "if not in melee", it could allow an army to fall back an important unit while keeping another behind to pin the melee unit down. This could give a reason to take counter charge units in shooting armies, rather than just an endless parade of screens.
I think this is better than just getting to do some extra damage against a unit that the other player may not care about in the first place.
The mentality of wanting to stay in combat means actually killing your opponent is bad. I'm not a fan.
Being able to consolidate back into combat makes the ability to fallback pretty pointless and a waste of time. Most melee units are going to be fast enough to catch them.
It should be harder to escape melee, or only possible after a round of combat.
Like, if a unit didn't need to take a morale test, it can flee without penalty.
Hellebore wrote: The mentality of wanting to stay in combat means actually killing your opponent is bad. I'm not a fan.
Being able to consolidate back into combat makes the ability to fallback pretty pointless and a waste of time. Most melee units are going to be fast enough to catch them.
It should be harder to escape melee, or only possible after a round of combat.
Like, if a unit didn't need to take a morale test, it can flee without penalty.
I like the idea only you get to attack on your turn, when its your turn you can A) stay in combat to shoot pistols and melee or B) Fallback but take a free strike against you (maybe not full melee, like each model get 1 attack dice or something).
This is how almost EVERY pvp style board game / monster cracker game works and makes sense
Could make fallback a LD check on 2d6. Some units could modify it, a unit with fly would have a - 1 to the roll while units like wyches could have a +1 or +2. But that also adds dice rolling that may or may not be necessary
What I'd prefer is just that a flying unit (or any other unit that may fire when they fall back) that falls back always suffers a -1 to hit penalty on top of any other penalties it may have. Because when it comes down to it the biggest problem with assaults aren't actually assaults themselves but lists that are composed completely of flying unit that can't be locked down.
The fact that a flying gunline can't be compromised at all by a melee force is a bit ridiculous . It allows the opponent to sometimes just ignore board control, which is quite silly.
Although I would give harlequins a pass on this, because that is what harlequins do
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/09 01:09:53
An all-new rules team, composed of creative individuals, skilled in technical writing, willing to re-examine their work, who are capable of admitting mistakes.
A total re-write.
Alternating activation by unit.
A comparative system, rather than fixed rolls.
An evasion stat.
Removal of armor saves.
Universal Special Rules that are:
A) Actually universal.
B) Have names that describe what they do.
C) Are more interesting than boring nonsense like "fight twice, reroll, -1 to hit, mortal wounds, etc." but instead are more active.
Unit types. With rules the tactually matter, such as bikes gaining the MEDGe version of hit-and-run.
Turn-by-turn scoring of victory points.
Asymmetrical objectives. 40k's version of Schemes & Strategies, etc.
Objectives that are deeper and more interesting than " whoever has more guys standing on these 6 points at the end of the game wins."
No chapter tactics. Instead a core ruleset that facilitates different play styles organically.
Stat cards for units. Every kit comes with all of the appropriate rules for using everything that kit can build.
A suppression system.
A Force Organization Chart. Limits on the number of units in a category that can be taken are important for balance, and helps to make infantry matter.
No more rolling to cast psychic powers.
Psychic powers and equivalents are chosen, at their specified points cost.
Valid uses for each weapon.
Templates.
Superheavies, gargantuans, and primarchs banished to Apocalypse.
Fix 8th slowly and incrementally; continue releasing new content via campaigns and KT/ BSF; tweak rules via Big FAQ's and CA.
Bring Apocalypse to tournaments so that people who prefer Alternate Activation and delayed damage get to just play the game that they already have rather than trying to make this game into that one so that everyone is forced to play the way that they prefer to play.
And I know, they're all going to say "but why should I have to buy another box?" , to which I reply "If you'd rather buy an entirely new edition than a $200 box of cards that allow you to do everything you claim to want to do without messing it up for everyone else, then your motivation isn't really financial, is it?"
You mean like what 40k has as opposed to AoS or something else? Like 7th edition with comparing WS against WS or maybe the evasive stat you're looking for?
Universal Special Rules that are:
A) Actually universal.
B) Have names that describe what they do.
C) Are more interesting than boring nonsense like "fight twice, reroll, -1 to hit, mortal wounds, etc." but instead are more active.
If the rules are universal they would have to describe effects that are achieved through different means, like Aeldar that jump out of the webway and Astra Militarum that jump out of a Valkyrie. So it can't be boring nonsense and it can't be individualised names for each unit to describe what the individual unit is doing like what we currently have in 8th. How do you actually solve that puzzle?
Turn-by-turn scoring of victory points.
Asymmetrical objectives. 40k's version of Schemes & Strategies, etc.
Objectives that are deeper and more interesting than " whoever has more guys standing on these 6 points at the end of the game wins."
ITC Champions/Nova missions are good for things other than just tournaments.
Stat cards for units. Every kit comes with all of the appropriate rules for using everything that kit can build.
I thought all kits already came with datacards, I don't think it's reasonable to put every single rule for a unit in the box, you'd need the base rules and spell out army-wide rules which shouldn't be required.
No more rolling to cast psychic powers.
Psychic powers and equivalents are chosen, at their specified points cost.
That's a really bad idea, psychic powers are powered by the warp, it's thematic that they are random.
Hellebore wrote: The mentality of wanting to stay in combat means actually killing your opponent is bad. I'm not a fan.
Being able to consolidate back into combat makes the ability to fallback pretty pointless and a waste of time. Most melee units are going to be fast enough to catch them.
It should be harder to escape melee, or only possible after a round of combat.
Like, if a unit didn't need to take a morale test, it can flee without penalty.
That would allow all vehicles to fall back and shoot unless you take them hostage.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Gadzilla666 wrote: Am I the only one who would like to see the return of legacy of ruin and similar rules?
It's not really any different than Relics and WL traits which are easy to spam for SM. I think vehicle honours might help people that don't play UM say that they have a legendary tank commander as well or a Daemon in the case of CSM.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/09 05:53:22
vict0988 wrote:
If the rules are universal they would have to describe effects that are achieved through different means, like Aeldar that jump out of the webway and Astra Militarum that jump out of a Valkyrie. So it can't be boring nonsense and it can't be individualised names for each unit to describe what the individual unit is doing like what we currently have in 8th. How do you actually solve that puzzle?
Because the rules need to be standardised, that doesn't mean the name does too.
There are plenty of examples of pre existing units with rules that have the same effect from different sources - invulnerable saves for example.
The point of a universal rule is in the back end, not just the front. When creating units they draw from standardised rule modules. The players will quickly learn that warp jump is the same as valkyrie drop.
vict0988 wrote:
If the rules are universal they would have to describe effects that are achieved through different means, like Aeldar that jump out of the webway and Astra Militarum that jump out of a Valkyrie. So it can't be boring nonsense and it can't be individualised names for each unit to describe what the individual unit is doing like what we currently have in 8th. How do you actually solve that puzzle?
Because the rules need to be standardised, that doesn't mean the name does too.
There are plenty of examples of pre existing units with rules that have the same effect from different sources - invulnerable saves for example.
The point of a universal rule is in the back end, not just the front. When creating units they draw from standardised rule modules. The players will quickly learn that warp jump is the same as valkyrie drop.
That just leads to bloat in the rules as well, And makes it harder to remember specific rules. Comes off more as lack of creativity than good creativity, when it comes down to it. Most of these rules should be for effects that any army will or should have access to. Individual rules left to give some units there specialty when needed.
If the same rule is given a new name in half the books, it also becomes a bit of bloat to update it when its needed, as well as putting them in a single place like they should be.
Something like deep strike, can mean many things. Teleport in, sneak in before battle, fell out of a plane like orks probably do. Its a strike Deep in the enemy controlled lines.
Steady could be used to remove heavy weapon negatives. You can also do things like, Steady on stationery. It only gains benefits when it did not move. As a way to give artillery some differences to normal heavy weapons.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/09 07:07:16
USRs actually clear up bloat, they don't add to more. Currently the state of bespoke rules, which I thought was a bad idea, is leading to much of this bloat. As instead of My unit having Deep strike, but it's all the same for units that do this. They all have different rules all written out that equate to that.
What is more bloat, a unit gaining Deep strike, and you can check the same source for every unit that has it. On the other side, each unit has a different bespoke rule " Warp Jump " " Grav chute insertion " " Teleportation " " Ambush " Etc, etc, etc.
Now, if I'm playing someone who doesn't know my army and I say my bespoke rule they look at me like I have two heads and I need to explain it. If it was all the same rule, maybe described in fluff how its done for each unit or faction, they'd just need to know the core USRs to know what the heck I'm talking about.
Getting rid of USRs was dumb, and I don't know why they ever thought it would somehow deal with bloat when all these special snowflake rules do the same things and are the very love child of the bloat god.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/09 08:04:17
The issue was that GW decided to force people into buying a BRB to get access to the USRs.
And that there was way to much USR's.
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/766717.page A Mostly Renegades and Heretics blog.
GW:"Space marines got too many options to balance, therefore we decided to legends HH units." Players: "why?!? Now we finally got decent plastic kits and you cut them?" Chaos marines players: "Since when are Daemonengines 30k models and why do i have NO droppods now?" GW" MONEY.... erm i meant TOO MANY OPTIONS (to resell your army to you again by disalowing former units)! Do you want specific tyranid fighiting Primaris? Even a new sabotage lieutnant!" Chaos players: Guess i stop playing or go to HH.
Fair enough, but dial some back then and make a cut down version of the main book affordable for people. Like those little, light copies that came out in the starter sets. I loved those rule books.
Not Online!!! wrote: The issue was that GW decided to force people into buying a BRB to get access to the USRs.
And that there was way to much USR's.
This sorta come up on one of the mini wargaming Q&A, about why they had so much trouble with 40kUSRs over other games, Like warmachine, infinity and the like.
And the answer was giving that it was that 40k just had so much more of them. Heavy paraphrase, but it kinda stuck with me on 40k design all these years.
At the Time 40k had less, and i think this is why its sorta such a issue in 40k. Its so many issues that for what ever reason they do not even make efforts to fix.
A lot of it is this weird obsession with narrative, but headed by people with no idea of the narrative on the battlefield of the game they design. A weird mashing of ideas, that really would make no difernce on the battlefields of 40k, but needed to be represented as they focus on narrative so much.
(not sure about the right words >.< English is hard.)
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/09 08:51:14
vict0988 wrote: If the rules are universal they would have to describe effects that are achieved through different means, like Aeldar that jump out of the webway and Astra Militarum that jump out of a Valkyrie. So it can't be boring nonsense and it can't be individualised names for each unit to describe what the individual unit is doing like what we currently have in 8th. How do you actually solve that puzzle?
Because the rules need to be standardised, that doesn't mean the name does too.
There are plenty of examples of pre existing units with rules that have the same effect from different sources - invulnerable saves for example.
The point of a universal rule is in the back end, not just the front. When creating units they draw from standardised rule modules. The players will quickly learn that warp jump is the same as valkyrie drop.
That's what we currently have with DS, for example, isn't it? How do you get away with calling that a USR? You're in fact saying that you don't want to go back to USRs and you want to keep the current hodgepodge of random rule names that all do the exact same thing right? Or are you saying From Golden Light should become From Golden Light (Deep Strike), so have the standardised rule there but in brackets? I think relatively few rules are actually unique, most of them just have unique names, but it's hard to tell them apart and remember which are unique because they all have random names.
IMO fluff should be in the fluff section, I'm mostly ambivalent whether USRs use rational names like Reinforcements or legacy names like Deep Strike, but calling it From Golden Light makes no sense. We need words that allow us to explain rules to each other, it's clear as day when you look at how people talk about the game while playing and while talking about the game that some kind of shared vocabulary is needed. Imagine if you could not say dog or chair, I have two of those animals with the fur and the teeth and they like to bark at strangers. I am sitting in one of those pieces of furniture that are made for sitting in.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/09 08:58:58
Alternating Activation (Commander units can activate multiple units, ala Bolt Action)
One model, one attack roll. One damage roll. No save rolls, no super saves no I-failed-the-save-but-get-to-save-again FNPbs. (Vehicles act based on crewmen - for example, a tank has a driver, turret gunner, two sponson gunners - so it can move and make around 3 attacks - at no penalty)
Kill anyone who suggests rerolls.
Terrain rules that affect movement and line of sight.
Overwatch - but you have to have prepared for it.
Melee Overwatch - but you have to have been unactivated.
Optional/Advanced rules for facing and unique characters - either prebuilt or make your own (similar to the 2019 CA).
An online army builder.
Free base rules and base troop datasheets.
That's what we currently have with DS, for example, isn't it? How do you get away with calling that a USR? You're in fact saying that you don't want to go back to USRs and you want to keep the current hodgepodge of random rule names that all do the exact same thing right? Or are you saying From Golden Light should become From Golden Light (Deep Strike), so have the standardised rule there but in brackets? I think relatively few rules are actually unique, most of them just have unique names, but it's hard to tell them apart and remember which are unique because they all have random names.
I don't see why datasheets shouldn't just have both.
Ambush: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Grave chute insertion: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Teleportarium: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Fell off a plane: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Warp-stuff: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Pretentious epithet because codex writer was bored: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Bharring wrote: At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life.
That's what we currently have with DS, for example, isn't it? How do you get away with calling that a USR? You're in fact saying that you don't want to go back to USRs and you want to keep the current hodgepodge of random rule names that all do the exact same thing right? Or are you saying From Golden Light should become From Golden Light (Deep Strike), so have the standardised rule there but in brackets? I think relatively few rules are actually unique, most of them just have unique names, but it's hard to tell them apart and remember which are unique because they all have random names.
I don't see why datasheets shouldn't just have both.
Ambush: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Grave chute insertion: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Teleportarium: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Fell off a plane: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Warp-stuff: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Pretentious epithet because codex writer was bored: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
This is basically what I'm talking about.
Personally I don't care if it just said DEEP STRIKE on every unit (as it did back in the original 3rd ed), but as some people have issue with the 'lack of flavour' this monotony creates, the above is basically the same thing.
The most important thing to remember though, is that a USR has a standardised rule wording that never changes from unit to unit. The actual mechanics stay the same. I think a lot of current similar rules aren't written entirely identically despite doing exactly the same thing.
The most important thing for USRs is that their mechanical wording is carbon copy - their name is just a tag for easy identification. Some people like the name to add colour, some don't. But the important part is that the rule remains constant across all instances of its use.
You can then have them all in a repository where, if in doubt, you go by the words written there. You can reprint the rules on each datasheet like they do now, but if there's a potential cut and paste error, pull out the core rule book and go by what it says.
That's what we currently have with DS, for example, isn't it? How do you get away with calling that a USR? You're in fact saying that you don't want to go back to USRs and you want to keep the current hodgepodge of random rule names that all do the exact same thing right? Or are you saying From Golden Light should become From Golden Light (Deep Strike), so have the standardised rule there but in brackets? I think relatively few rules are actually unique, most of them just have unique names, but it's hard to tell them apart and remember which are unique because they all have random names.
I don't see why datasheets shouldn't just have both.
Ambush: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Grave chute insertion: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Teleportarium: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Fell off a plane: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Warp-stuff: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Pretentious epithet because codex writer was bored: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
This is basically what I'm talking about.
Personally I don't care if it just said DEEP STRIKE on every unit (as it did back in the original 3rd ed), but as some people have issue with the 'lack of flavour' this monotony creates, the above is basically the same thing.
The most important thing to remember though, is that a USR has a standardised rule wording that never changes from unit to unit. The actual mechanics stay the same. I think a lot of current similar rules aren't written entirely identically despite doing exactly the same thing.
The most important thing for USRs is that their mechanical wording is carbon copy - their name is just a tag for easy identification. Some people like the name to add colour, some don't. But the important part is that the rule remains constant across all instances of its use.
You can then have them all in a repository where, if in doubt, you go by the words written there. You can reprint the rules on each datasheet like they do now, but if there's a potential cut and paste error, pull out the core rule book and go by what it says.
Precisely. This is also the approach of any sane editor whenever you have content that gets reproduced across multiple documents.
Bharring wrote: At worst, you'll spend all your time and money on a hobby you don't enjoy, hate everything you're doing, and drive no value out of what should be the best times of your life.
That's what we currently have with DS, for example, isn't it? How do you get away with calling that a USR? You're in fact saying that you don't want to go back to USRs and you want to keep the current hodgepodge of random rule names that all do the exact same thing right? Or are you saying From Golden Light should become From Golden Light (Deep Strike), so have the standardised rule there but in brackets? I think relatively few rules are actually unique, most of them just have unique names, but it's hard to tell them apart and remember which are unique because they all have random names.
I don't see why datasheets shouldn't just have both.
Ambush: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Grave chute insertion: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Teleportarium: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Fell off a plane: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Warp-stuff: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
Pretentious epithet because codex writer was bored: This unit has DEEP STRIKE.
This is basically what I'm talking about.
Personally I don't care if it just said DEEP STRIKE on every unit (as it did back in the original 3rd ed), but as some people have issue with the 'lack of flavour' this monotony creates, the above is basically the same thing.
The most important thing to remember though, is that a USR has a standardised rule wording that never changes from unit to unit. The actual mechanics stay the same. I think a lot of current similar rules aren't written entirely identically despite doing exactly the same thing.
The most important thing for USRs is that their mechanical wording is carbon copy - their name is just a tag for easy identification. Some people like the name to add colour, some don't. But the important part is that the rule remains constant across all instances of its use.
You can then have them all in a repository where, if in doubt, you go by the words written there. You can reprint the rules on each datasheet like they do now, but if there's a potential cut and paste error, pull out the core rule book and go by what it says.
The name is very important, now you just end up with a bunch of rules with two seperate names for a bunch of factions. Why it may not seem like much, it’s a huge burden of complication on the design. And a big portion of bloat in a game is just knowing which rules are named what when they are referenced.
The whole point of having USRs in the first place is so you can have special rules on units to make them interesting and special.
It ads little flavour for taking up so much in the design. All you would find with this design is people getting annoyed at the use of the snowflake flavour names and pull you right out of that narrative.
When it comes down to it, most rules that would fit into the proposed USRs would not need a new name, and others just a new name to fit there purpose a bit better.
This will never happen, but for me what would be perfect is if GW expanded upon the rules from Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth. Use those rules as the core system, which will have nothing bigger than Contemptor Dreadnought. In the rules have lists for all the current factions, have more asymmetric missions, along with secret missions, and a bigger range of hex map sections to create some very interesting games.
Along side this keep Apocalypse, as that should be the large scale conflict game. Where as the Horus Heresy Betrayal at Calth will be a platoon/company level game.
The objective of the game is to win. The point of the game is to have fun. The two should never be confused.
With regards to the name being important, of course. Striking Scorpions shouldn't have "DEEP STRIKE", as they're not deepstriking onto the table. THey should have "Strike from the Shadows: This unit has DEEP STRIKE".
Minor "bloat" of the datacard having a rule that just says "use this USR". But it fixes the "unflavorful" problems of USRs.
Bharring wrote: With regards to the name being important, of course. Striking Scorpions shouldn't have "DEEP STRIKE", as they're not deepstriking onto the table. THey should have "Strike from the Shadows: This unit has DEEP STRIKE".
Minor "bloat" of the datacard having a rule that just says "use this USR". But it fixes the "unflavorful" problems of USRs.
Deep strike can mean a strike deep within enemy lines, or anything similar. Doing it a few times is ok, but a whole system like 40k leads it to a lot of mental bloat. And up and undermining of your own systems writing.
Better would be on a full data sheet have it state that striking scorpions strike from the shadows and have Deep Strike as a rule. But on any rules specific card simply say Deep Strike on its own.
If it’s even worth the time for the devs to come up with names as such.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/10/09 17:35:48
Gamgee on Tau Players wrote:we all kill cats and sell our own families to the devil and eat live puppies.
Kanluwen wrote: This is, emphatically, why I will continue suggesting nuking Guard and starting over again. It's a legacy army that needs to be rebooted with a new focal point.
Confirmation of why no-one should listen to Kanluwen when it comes to the IG - he doesn't want the IG, he want's Kan's New Model Army...
tneva82 wrote: You aren't even trying ty pretend for honest arqument. Open bad faith trolling.
- No reason to keep this here, unless people want to use it for something...
Bonespitta's Badmoons 1441 pts. 
15k+
Emperor's Spears 2500
Beastmen 10k
