Switch Theme:

How Do You Feel About the State of 40k?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
How do you feel about the State of 40k?
Very Positive - the game is in a great place
Positive - the game is good but could improve
Neutral - don't feel strongly one way or another
Negative - something about the state of 40k is bad
Very Negative - 40k is in an awful place right now
I just like to vote on polls but don't have an opinion

View results
Author Message
Advert


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




Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Of course they're less randomly generated than the old ones; I wasn't suggesting they go back to old style of mission. But the point remains that the next big step in mission design is to find a way to add more variability. Done right, doing so would increase competitiveness, not decrease it.
   
Made in us
Daemonic Dreadnought




The dark hollows of Kentucky

yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course they're less randomly generated than the old ones; I wasn't suggesting they go back to old style of mission. But the point remains that the next big step in mission design is to find a way to add more variability. Done right, doing so would increase competitiveness, not decrease it.

Assuming Zion is right and gw is working with the ITC folks on the mission designs, is that kind of variability something the old ITC missions had? Is that something ITC does? Just wondering as I generally avoid tournaments.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Apple fox wrote:
Really, terrain should be creating enough variance in the basic missions.
You say that, but so many reports I see nower days are playing on that God-awful symmetrical ITC terrain set up.

yukishiro1 wrote:
If that were true, we'd have only one mission, because that is the easiest to balance.
I mean... we kinda do though. The variation between mission types in 9th is pretty slim. If I could I'd do an overlay of all the mission maps showing how it's mostly just where the objective markers are. There's no real variety there, and the main objective is always the same - 5 for holding one, more for holding 2 or more than your opponent, max 15 from that every turn.

It's so oppressively dull. And they introduced secondaries to add 'variety', but people just take the ones that are easiest to score, and that results in entire types of units vanishing from the table as to not give away points.

9th's missions are a complete mess.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/12 06:04:56


Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Gadzilla666 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course they're less randomly generated than the old ones; I wasn't suggesting they go back to old style of mission. But the point remains that the next big step in mission design is to find a way to add more variability. Done right, doing so would increase competitiveness, not decrease it.

Assuming Zion is right and gw is working with the ITC folks on the mission designs, is that kind of variability something the old ITC missions had? Is that something ITC does? Just wondering as I generally avoid tournaments.


No, but ITC was basically three guys and a girl (now two guys and a girl, I guess) in a FLGS, not a multi-billion dollar company. It should be able to invest more resources into mission development and come up with a way to take the ITC mission structure and add variety while retaining competitiveness.

Also, even ITC with its limited resources came out with a new mission pack every year that changed things up. So GW has managed to underdeliver quite spectacularly here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 06:23:24


 
   
Made in us
Grumpy Longbeard





washington state USA

 the_scotsman wrote:
Right, not like the creative mission design from fourth thru seventh where the mission design was:

1) 4 objectives around the board, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

2) 1 objective in each DZ, whoever holds more at the end of the game wins

3) whoever kills more units at the end of the game wins



Going back a bit

you missed a few

victory conditions used prior to 8th
1.default wipe out the enemy
2.table quarters (the one opposite of your starting quarter is worth the most)
3.d3+2 objectives
4.center objective (king of the hill)
5.center objective that can be moved up to 6" per player turn
6.kill points/victory points (3rd & 4th)
7.one objective in each players deployment zone
8.tie breakers-slay the warlord/linebreaker/first blood

Additional about the only good things that 6th ed brought to the game-mysterious terrain/mysterious objectives.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/06/12 06:47:37




GAMES-DUST1947/infinity/B5 wars/epic 40K/5th ed 40K/victory at sea/warmachine/battle tactics/monpoc/battletech/battlefleet gothic/castles in the sky,/heavy gear 
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






I am trying to update the GT missions, but the question is how far can you stretch diversity without breaking balance? Removing invulnerable saves around objectives? That's total BS if you play Slaanesh Daemons vs Grey Knights.

You can do some interesting things by combining mission rules, mission secondary and terrain. Maybe the mission rules, deployment type and the mission secondary sucks for long-ranged units and are amazing for melee units, maybe the terrain should be planet bowling ball to compensate.

Open War sounds like a bad way to play to me, whether you get a good game will be totally up to the luck of the draw before the game has even started. I don't mind the game being decided by dice on round 5+ when playing casually but before deployment? That's not for me.

Look at the achievements of Lionel Messi from soccer vs Firebat from Hearthstone, the best players at their respective game, it's impossible for Firebat to keep up because he will lose more often to bad luck because Hearthstone is so luck driven. Yes, a skilled Hearthstone player plays around luck to maximize their opportunity, but you can't yolo your way to victory by slamming face in soccer.

Hearthstone tournaments have to use a series of matches to give the better players any reliability in beating lesser opponents. If Hearthstone was single elimination in tournaments you'd see nobodies winning very often because pretty often you will throw a game purely due to bad luck and a bad matchup.
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
Apple fox wrote:
Really, terrain should be creating enough variance in the basic missions.
You say that, but so many reports I see nower days are playing on that God-awful symmetrical ITC terrain set up.



GW terrain is bad, often only looking good enough to save it. So I sorta expect that to happen until they get someone on the design side to make terrain that can facilitate good rules.

Sadly yup, that God-awful terrain setup sucks >.< so much of this game would improve with good terrain rules.
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

When you say GW terrain is bad, you mean the rules, right?

Industrial Insanity - My Terrain Blog
"GW really needs to understand 'Less is more' when it comes to AoS." - Wha-Mu-077

 
   
Made in au
Longtime Dakkanaut




 H.B.M.C. wrote:
When you say GW terrain is bad, you mean the rules, right?


Most of there terrain looks good, but is rather bad for good terrain rules and contributes to the bad terrain rules. And the terrain that is good is prohibitive expensive for the avg players to do enough with for good rules.
Good terrain design is important to the game, GW knows if it looks good not enough people care if it sucks or leads to bad gameplay.

It’s one reason I think also leads to the weird terrain setups, the terrain GW sells doesn’t really improve the game unless you specifically want the visuals. Bit of a outline opinion but I think it holds with how Avg at best GW rules tend to be around terrain.
As well as having to support stupid designs in other places on top of that.
   
Made in nl
Longtime Dakkanaut





 Gadzilla666 wrote:
yukishiro1 wrote:
Of course they're less randomly generated than the old ones; I wasn't suggesting they go back to old style of mission. But the point remains that the next big step in mission design is to find a way to add more variability. Done right, doing so would increase competitiveness, not decrease it.

Assuming Zion is right and gw is working with the ITC folks on the mission designs, is that kind of variability something the old ITC missions had? Is that something ITC does? Just wondering as I generally avoid tournaments.
No, ITC was basically what the 9th edition missions are now except all the secondaries were about killing units/models and half the primary points were also about killing units.

But I imagine the people complaining about the lack of variety in 9th edition missions are not people that enjoyed playing ITC in the past.
   
Made in es
Grim Dark Angels Interrogator-Chaplain




Vigo. Spain.

TBH competitive games that work with Maps always heavely limit It in tournaments.

SC2 competitive Maps are a smal list of nearly simetrical scenarios . Lets not Talk about LoL single map.

For me, maelstrom of war with all the changes of 8th was the BEST .

 Crimson Devil wrote:

Dakka does have White Knights and is also rather infamous for it's Black Knights. A new edition brings out the passionate and not all of them are good at expressing themselves in written form. There have been plenty of hysterical responses from both sides so far. So we descend into pointless bickering with neither side listening to each other. So posting here becomes more masturbation than conversation.

ERJAK wrote:
Forcing a 40k player to keep playing 7th is basically a hate crime.

 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Fayetteville NC

I've gained a lot of enjoyment from 40K for three decades now. Each edition had its positives and negatives. The only exception was 7th ed. I stopped during what turned out to be its final year as I truly disliked the allies and formations.

Currently, I am enjoying 9th edition very much and played my Craftworld nearly exclusively.

I've got a varied player base and the game is still bringing in new players. I play against a wide variety of opponents and armies. I see more painted armies at the local game shops than I ever have which is something I am very happy with, yet trying to figure out why this is occurring.

We have tourneys, leagues, pick up games and a Crusade beginning.

This edition prompted me to build a new army, Necrons. This is not something I do often, but enjoy the depth of 9th edition codexes

All in all, I am very happy with the state of 40K.


Whoah....I have played 40K for over 30 years.  
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Sarigar wrote:


I see more painted armies at the local game shops than I ever have which is something I am very happy with, yet trying to figure out why this is occurring.

10VP difference for having an unpainted army is a huge point difference, it is like having a fourth secondary proc against you. So unless someone is okey with losing all or most, of their games, the armies in 9th have to be painted, like painting or not.


But I imagine the people complaining about the lack of variety in 9th edition missions are not people that enjoyed playing ITC in the past.

Well it was more fair. As everyone had to suffer the same style of mission. It is not very fun to be one of the few armies that always hit with kill secondaries, even more so if the opponent can double dip on them, and do two secondaries at the same time.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





So I'm still a bit confused about some complaints.

When people talk about mission sameness, no one is talking about how secondaries, though not listed in the mission description, modify the mission, and are asymmetrical in that each player chooses their own. Nobody mentions that these are categorized, and that only one can be selected from each category in games that are large enough that players can pick more than one. Similarly, no one is mentioning that these can be chosen from a generic list, or from bespoke codex content.

To be fair, it was mentioned previously that it's a pretty common practice to list build with the hope of achieving the particular secondary(s) which best suit your army and stick with them. And in the competitive circuit, victory is obviously prioritized. But I feel like if you're bored with a mission, and you're just playing a game with a friend, you kind of owe it to yourself to try a secondary or two that you'd never play in a tourney and shake up your own game.

And of course, there's the notion of game size to begin with; I realize that tournaments are typically set at Strike Force level, though the GT mission pack also includes incursion level. But game size makes a difference, and again, if you're bored, don't you owe it to yourself to get out of the box?

The last factor is theatres of war- again, not likely used on the competitive tournament circuit. But for the past 9 months, every White Dwarf has contained at least three, and anyone who invested in PA has a bunch more. These things shake up a battle like crazy. Does anyone ever use them?

Could the basic missions straight out of the GT mission pack be more interesting? Maybe; I concede there would be no harm in trying to improve them. I also agree that it is a lost opportunity to not modify them much from year to year. Certainly fair comments and suggestions.

But again, it does seem that people put themselves in a box, for whatever reason, and then blame the game itself for the box they're in. If you've played the same Strike force mission twice, using 3 different secondaries for each game, and a different theatre of war for each game and you still think the two games feel the same, I'd like to hear back from you; I don't have as much actual playing experience as many who post here. I'm genuinely curious how these two hypothetical games can actually feel the same.

   
Made in us
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker





 Galas wrote:
TBH competitive games that work with Maps always heavely limit It in tournaments.

SC2 competitive Maps are a smal list of nearly simetrical scenarios . Lets not Talk about LoL single map.

For me, maelstrom of war with all the changes of 8th was the BEST .

If a game has actual variability in the maps (Smash Bros and Heroes of the Storm come to mind) then picking the map is usually part of the tournament ruleset, ie best of 5 and the loser of the last game picks the map in the next one, often times even with the ability to ban maps from being picked.
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





PenitentJake wrote:
But for the past 9 months, every White Dwarf has contained at least three, and anyone who invested in PA has a bunch more. These things shake up a battle like crazy. Does anyone ever use them?


They don't know what they want to be. People can't pine for asymmetry and then complain about balance. Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety.

In Starcraft there are set tournament maps with specified start positions. Chess is the same every single time. The enjoyment is derived by outperforming the opponent in all cases. Not by what orbital bombardment hits where or by who gets the gakky deployment zone when the terrain doesn't fit the map.

   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety...


Balance increases variety. In a perfectly unbalanced game there's one list that wins every game, so everyone's just playing that. The more balanced the game is the more of the stuff in the game you can use.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




 Daedalus81 wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
But for the past 9 months, every White Dwarf has contained at least three, and anyone who invested in PA has a bunch more. These things shake up a battle like crazy. Does anyone ever use them?


They don't know what they want to be. People can't pine for asymmetry and then complain about balance. Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety.

In Starcraft there are set tournament maps with specified start positions. Chess is the same every single time. The enjoyment is derived by outperforming the opponent in all cases. Not by what orbital bombardment hits where or by who gets the gakky deployment zone when the terrain doesn't fit the map.


I think people very much know what they want. They want to build multiple powerful armies out of one book, and not have their collection invalidated, they also don't want the army to be ultra bad, if for some reason the design team decides that the theme the players picked is going to be unplayable within the given rule set. Same with scenarios and all additional rules. The closest people are willing to go with limitations to their own armies, is if the limits are big, but the end result is a top tier rank1 army. It is much easier to deal with lack of options for your army, when you are in the situation of harlequins, then if you are in the place of a knight or Tau player.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in ie
Pustulating Plague Priest





 Daedalus81 wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
But for the past 9 months, every White Dwarf has contained at least three, and anyone who invested in PA has a bunch more. These things shake up a battle like crazy. Does anyone ever use them?


They don't know what they want to be. People can't pine for asymmetry and then complain about balance. Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety.


You can have both you know.


 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Fayetteville NC

Karol wrote:
 Sarigar wrote:


I see more painted armies at the local game shops than I ever have which is something I am very happy with, yet trying to figure out why this is occurring.

10VP difference for having an unpainted army is a huge point difference, it is like having a fourth secondary proc against you. So unless someone is okey with losing all or most, of their games, the armies in 9th have to be painted, like painting or not.


But I imagine the people complaining about the lack of variety in 9th edition missions are not people that enjoyed playing ITC in the past.

Well it was more fair. As everyone had to suffer the same style of mission. It is not very fun to be one of the few armies that always hit with kill secondaries, even more so if the opponent can double dip on them, and do two secondaries at the same time.


The 10 point painting requirement is simply not the case in my experience at all. For two day events, the 10 point penalty has opened up for unpainted models to even be allowed. Prior to this, 2 day events I've ever attended had a must be painted rule. Now, they don't mandate it, but if your stuff is not fully painted, you don't get the 10 points, which the organizers indicate. People still show up with painted models, so no real change. In our league games, it encouraged building a new army and nobody was penalized 10 points for painting. In pick up games, I am yet to experience anyone trying to deny anyone 10 points for painting.

Whoah....I have played 40K for over 30 years.  
   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




Well good for you, that people don't follow the rules. Because they clearly say, unpainted means 10VP for the painted army. There is no clause about, but only if your opponent isn't a new player.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Fayetteville NC

Karol wrote:
Well good for you, that people don't follow the rules. Because they clearly say, unpainted means 10VP for the painted army. There is no clause about, but only if your opponent isn't a new player.


And yet, I'm still trying to figure out why I'm seeing more and more painted armies in my local area. Personally, I only use painted models and it is a very rare day I deviate from that, but that was how I was taught to play 40K; if it's not painted it doesn't go on the table. But that was back in the 80s learning 40K from a bunch of historical gamers who were branching out into this new game called Warhammer 40,000.

You tend to post a lot of negativity and project it on others, as evidenced by your previous reply to my original statement. Now, your claim is even sillier. We don't follow the rules and it equates to having more painted armies showing up on the table?

I'll blow your mind even more about the state of 9th. I just finished an eight game league which culminated in a 3 round tourney. I went 6-2 in the league, earning 3rd place. I went 3-0 in the tourney, earning 1st place. With Craftowrlds....and never penalized any opponent if there was an unpainted model in their army.

Whoah....I have played 40K for over 30 years.  
   
Made in de
Ork Admiral Kroozin Da Kosmos on Da Hulk






People might also just have had more time to paint. I absolutely hate painting and am a slow painter on top of that, but over the course of last year I have completed roughly 80% of my DG collection (up from ~20%) plus some ork units.

Earth is not flat
Vaccines work
We've been to the moon
Climate change is real
Chemtrails aren't a thing
Evolution is a fact
Orks are not a melee army
Stand up for science!
 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Fayetteville NC

 Jidmah wrote:
People might also just have had more time to paint. I absolutely hate painting and am a slow painter on top of that, but over the course of last year I have completed roughly 80% of my DG collection (up from ~20%) plus some ork units.


That is entirely possible. For the most part, we continued work as normal over the past year, but I'm sure there were some who had a more flexible work schedules, work from home, etc...

For tourneys, it was business as usual. One day events had mostly, if not all, painted and took a penalty or not depending on the organizer's rules put out in advance. For two day events, people brought painted armies. Ironically, organizers no longer dictated armies had to be painted like they did in the past. Now, they just used the GT Mission pack. This rule actually made 2 day events more accessible to players than in the past. If they wanted to play with unpainted stuff, they could and take a penalty as opposed to simply not be allowed to use unpainted models.

Whoah....I have played 40K for over 30 years.  
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

 Sarigar wrote:


That is entirely possible. For the most part, we continued work as normal over the past year, but I'm sure there were some who had a more flexible work schedules, work from home, etc...



A lot of activities have been shut down for a year or more. Restaurants, pubs, clubs, gyms, stadiums, theatres, stores etc have been closed or strictly limited for a long time... there's also the curfew to consider. Lots of extra time for painting, even if work schedules didn't change.


 
   
Made in us
Agile Revenant Titan





Fayetteville NC

 Blackie wrote:
 Sarigar wrote:


That is entirely possible. For the most part, we continued work as normal over the past year, but I'm sure there were some who had a more flexible work schedules, work from home, etc...



A lot of activities have been shut down for a year or more. Restaurants, pubs, clubs, gyms, stadiums, theatres, stores etc have been closed or strictly limited for a long time... there's also the curfew to consider. Lots of extra time for painting, even if work schedules didn't change.


It's certainly a possibility. I'm relating my experience locally as it may not have been as restrictive as others...can't really know for sure. It is something I'll ask as this has been an observation locally or within a few states I've travelled to for tourneys.

Whoah....I have played 40K for over 30 years.  
   
Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut





 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety...


Balance increases variety. In a perfectly unbalanced game there's one list that wins every game, so everyone's just playing that. The more balanced the game is the more of the stuff in the game you can use.


Yes, in general. I am not persuaded for this particular part of the game. I am open to suggestions that people think would make a substantive difference to missions without upsetting the apple cart.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Karol wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
PenitentJake wrote:
But for the past 9 months, every White Dwarf has contained at least three, and anyone who invested in PA has a bunch more. These things shake up a battle like crazy. Does anyone ever use them?


They don't know what they want to be. People can't pine for asymmetry and then complain about balance. Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety.

In Starcraft there are set tournament maps with specified start positions. Chess is the same every single time. The enjoyment is derived by outperforming the opponent in all cases. Not by what orbital bombardment hits where or by who gets the gakky deployment zone when the terrain doesn't fit the map.


I think people very much know what they want. They want to build multiple powerful armies out of one book, and not have their collection invalidated, they also don't want the army to be ultra bad, if for some reason the design team decides that the theme the players picked is going to be unplayable within the given rule set. Same with scenarios and all additional rules. The closest people are willing to go with limitations to their own armies, is if the limits are big, but the end result is a top tier rank1 army. It is much easier to deal with lack of options for your army, when you are in the situation of harlequins, then if you are in the place of a knight or Tau player.


We're talking about different things, I think. I'm focused on just the missions.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/06/13 14:24:57


   
Made in pl
Fixture of Dakka




It is not really possible to separate army functionality from the missions. The problems knights have or the fact that tyranids were turned in to codex 3xDima, is the result of missions that exist in the game.

No one wants a good army, which is good in open or if you you happen to play it with some strange comp or with rules left out.

Strikes for GK went from always better then termintors, to not always better then termintors stricktly because abhore the witch exists, and killing 5 t4 +3sv 1W models in 9th is laughably easy.

If you have to kill, then kill in the best manner. If you slaughter, then slaughter in the best manner. Let one of you sharpen his knife so his animal feels no pain. 
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







 Daedalus81 wrote:
 AnomanderRake wrote:
 Daedalus81 wrote:
...Nor should they want balance and then complain about lack of variety...


Balance increases variety. In a perfectly unbalanced game there's one list that wins every game, so everyone's just playing that. The more balanced the game is the more of the stuff in the game you can use.


Yes, in general. I am not persuaded for this particular part of the game. I am open to suggestions that people think would make a substantive difference to missions without upsetting the apple cart...


The problem is that there are almost no consistent core mechanics, those that do exist are unevenly distributed, and army composition is hugely varied. Slight changes to missions can translate to wild swings in balance and huge buffs/nerfs to specific armies; the 8e no-Invul-bubble mission was a prime example (play Guard and you don't care, play Harlequins and you almost just can't play that mission), as are the 9e tournament missions (putting all the objectives in the middle screws Tau really badly, since if you get to melee with them you usually win). If you go look at games with more consistent core mechanics and less spammy army composition you'll usually find much more varied missions.

Balanced Game: Noun. A game in which all options and choices are worth using.
Homebrew oldhammer project: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/790996.page#10896267
Meridian: Necromunda-based 40k skirmish: https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/795374.page 
   
Made in us
Humming Great Unclean One of Nurgle






I think that is looking at it from the wrong side. I think a goal of missions should be to promote adaptability, to force players to compromise their one-trick-pony in order to add utility. There should be missions where all the objectives are centrally located and Tau will need to take some points off their gun line to add mobile elements. There should be missions with lots of little objectives that make it hard on armies running only a small number of powerful units. There should be missions that screw with reinforcements, screw with fliers, screw with LoS. Not in such a significant way as to neuter them like the aforementioned no-invul bubble but something with enough oomph that a well built army can't go all-in on its gimmick.

And before it gets said; that is a balance problem which exists now and will exist regardless of what form the missions take.

Road to Renown! It's like classic Path to Glory, but repaired, remastered, expanded! https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/778170.page


I chose an avatar I feel best represents the quality of my post history. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: