Switch Theme:

6 USR that needs to be added to the BRB or many Datasheets  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
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






1) Large models (MC and Walkers) gain rule to either be able to attack 2nd or high floors of buildings/Ruins, (Add barricades 2" rule as well to make it easier and less arguing)
a) not all Walkers or MC should gain this rule, example of what can and cant; Carnifex should not, Trygons should, Wraithknight with weapon should, Wraithknight without shouldnt, Mawloc coming out shouldnt, Mawloc in melee should. Dreadknoughts should, War Walkers shouldnt

2) All MCs and vehicles should have "My fall back from combat and still shoot in the following shooting phase with -1 to hit, it may only fallback and shoot if it was engage with infantry or swarms"
a) Fly still can fall back over everything and still shoot like normal

3) Soft and Hard cover from Cities of Death narrative rules from the CA, Soft cover gives +1 save (Woods, battlescape, craters, obstacles) Hard cover gives +2 save, Ruins, Pipes, Barricades, Fortifications), add the rule "If each model in the unit is
within 1" of terrain feature they are counted as being in cover" meaning if the terrain has no base, and you are within 1" for each model in that unit you are counted as being in cover

4) Lucky Hit from Cities of Death narrative rules via CA (AKA 6's to hit always hit)

5) Hammer of Wrath, when you charge a unit not in cover, on the turn that unit charge and you didnt lose any models from Overwtach, gain +1 attack (or str, idk what would be better for the game, i feel str is better honestly), you cannot gain Hammer of Wraith rule against any unit that your opponent used the stratagem "Counter-Offensive" against your unit.

6) Give many transports some Fire Points back

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2019/01/07 20:41:03


15k+ 12k+ 5k :Harlequin: 4k

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




I would prefer that they take the cover rules from kill team and make it a negative to hit rather than a bonus to your armor.
   
Made in us
Glorious Grot Banna Wava




A few quarrels here:

Last part of 3: Terrain with no base is exactly what the "statuary" and "Barricade" terrain type is intended to handle.

Body of 3) Having tried Cities of Death, I kind of like it, but the one thing I was not a huge fan of actually was how heavily it emphasized a "shoot and camp" playstyle. Now, maybe if they resolved the stupid "I"m in a ruin upper level and I am un-assaultable" FAQ ruling this wouldn't be the case, but with Obscurement, Hard Cover, and Height Advantage, a unit of HWTs, Devastators etc was basically impossible to shift. It succeeded at making the game longer, but it was basically just "everything interesting dies turn 1-2, enjoy 3 turns of units sitting in ruins plinking at each other fishing for 4s-5s to hit and trying to wound through +2 armor cover"

5) What? Why? Melee combat being alpha-strike only kill everything nonsense is IMO a big problem with the game presently caused by how difficult it is to get IN to melee meaning that dedicated melee units damage has to be thru the roof to compensate. This change would push the game even farther in the "smashfucker/shield captain/knight gallant" nonsense direction.

2) you had me for the first part and lost me at the second. So, if my Tau Piranha charges a Land Raider, then I have stunlocked it for the rest of the game, because it can't fall back? Definitely agree something should be done about Bumper Cars nonsense.
   
Made in us
Grizzled MkII Monster Veteran





Mississippi

I really think they cover should be “If you draw line of sight through terrain or the enemy models are within 1” of terrain they gain cover”.

It never ends well 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






the_scotsman wrote:
A few quarrels here:

Last part of 3: Terrain with no base is exactly what the "statuary" and "Barricade" terrain type is intended to handle.

Body of 3) Having tried Cities of Death, I kind of like it, but the one thing I was not a huge fan of actually was how heavily it emphasized a "shoot and camp" playstyle. Now, maybe if they resolved the stupid "I"m in a ruin upper level and I am un-assaultable" FAQ ruling this wouldn't be the case, but with Obscurement, Hard Cover, and Height Advantage, a unit of HWTs, Devastators etc was basically impossible to shift. It succeeded at making the game longer, but it was basically just "everything interesting dies turn 1-2, enjoy 3 turns of units sitting in ruins plinking at each other fishing for 4s-5s to hit and trying to wound through +2 armor cover"

5) What? Why? Melee combat being alpha-strike only kill everything nonsense is IMO a big problem with the game presently caused by how difficult it is to get IN to melee meaning that dedicated melee units damage has to be thru the roof to compensate. This change would push the game even farther in the "smashfucker/shield captain/knight gallant" nonsense direction.

2) you had me for the first part and lost me at the second. So, if my Tau Piranha charges a Land Raider, then I have stunlocked it for the rest of the game, because it can't fall back? Definitely agree something should be done about Bumper Cars nonsense.


2) Yes, that makes sense, why would a land raider be able to out run a flying ship that can space travel? The point is, its a tank, it should be able to run/move away or run over infantry.
~~EDIT:~~~ I understand that all vehicles should be able to shoot all the time b.c its a gun, why not shoot it at something? But there needs to be cuts off somewhere, and this is a good example, otherwise you could just take 4 and run them into something and sit there and shoot all game, locking up a unit and shooting it at the same time. Im just thinking of other situations that would break the game, this idea shouldnt but at least help players take these units

3) Cities of death does do that yes, but in 40k with 1/2 the terrain, its not as much as a problem, also, ALL terrain GW sells that are buildings, Ruins, Pipes dont have bass, players add cardboard, foam-board, wood to them for a base. Normal 40k bought terrain doesnt have bases.

5) I understand your idea/concern about this, but this gives many more units the option to be able to melee better (like marines for example) good melee units right now always over kill, adding 5-10 more wounds to a 20 wound uit that already took 30 wounds isnt changing the game.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2019/01/07 19:40:01


15k+ 12k+ 5k :Harlequin: 4k

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




 Amishprn86 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
A few quarrels here:

Last part of 3: Terrain with no base is exactly what the "statuary" and "Barricade" terrain type is intended to handle.

Body of 3) Having tried Cities of Death, I kind of like it, but the one thing I was not a huge fan of actually was how heavily it emphasized a "shoot and camp" playstyle. Now, maybe if they resolved the stupid "I"m in a ruin upper level and I am un-assaultable" FAQ ruling this wouldn't be the case, but with Obscurement, Hard Cover, and Height Advantage, a unit of HWTs, Devastators etc was basically impossible to shift. It succeeded at making the game longer, but it was basically just "everything interesting dies turn 1-2, enjoy 3 turns of units sitting in ruins plinking at each other fishing for 4s-5s to hit and trying to wound through +2 armor cover"

5) What? Why? Melee combat being alpha-strike only kill everything nonsense is IMO a big problem with the game presently caused by how difficult it is to get IN to melee meaning that dedicated melee units damage has to be thru the roof to compensate. This change would push the game even farther in the "smashfucker/shield captain/knight gallant" nonsense direction.

2) you had me for the first part and lost me at the second. So, if my Tau Piranha charges a Land Raider, then I have stunlocked it for the rest of the game, because it can't fall back? Definitely agree something should be done about Bumper Cars nonsense.


2) Yes, that makes sense, why would a land raider be able to out run a flying ship that can space travel? The point is, its a tank, it should be able to run/move away or run over infantry.
~~EDIT:~~~ I understand that all vehicles should be able to shoot all the time b.c its a gun, why not shoot it at something? But there needs to be cuts off somewhere, and this is a good example, otherwise you could just take 4 and run them into something and sit there and shoot all game, locking up a unit and shooting it at the same time. Im just thinking of other situations that would break the game, this idea shouldnt but at least help players take these units

3) Cities of death does do that yes, but in 40k with 1/2 the terrain, its not as much as a problem, also, ALL terrain GW sells that are buildings, Ruins, Pipes dont have bass, players add cardboard, foam-board, wood to them for a base. Normal 40k bought terrain doesnt have bases.

5) I understand your idea/concern about this, but this gives many more units the option to be able to melee better (like marines for example) good melee units right now always over kill, adding 5-10 more wounds to a 20 wound uit that already took 30 wounds isnt changing the game.

A phirana is the tau equivalent of an attack bike not a tigershark or baraccuda which is what it sounds like you are describing.

And no alot of thise improvements are totally jumping the shark and missing the actual issues in the core rules.
   
Made in us
Glorious Grot Banna Wava




Aight, you're justifying rules with fluff, I think this thread is done.

A 50-point tank being able to immobilize a 350-point tank would not make the game more balanced. It would do the exact opposite.
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






the_scotsman wrote:
Aight, you're justifying rules with fluff, I think this thread is done.

A 50-point tank being able to immobilize a 350-point tank would not make the game more balanced. It would do the exact opposite.


You know a 4 point sguy can do that now right? You are talking about 10% the models stopping it vs 100% the models like it is now.

But i guess that isnt good enough for you, so lets just keep it the way it is now and let every unit stop vehicles.

Instead of arguing or saying something not helpful, then why no contribute and say "Well i feel this way is better"

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 20:01:47


15k+ 12k+ 5k :Harlequin: 4k

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Glorious Grot Banna Wava




 Amishprn86 wrote:
the_scotsman wrote:
Aight, you're justifying rules with fluff, I think this thread is done.

A 50-point tank being able to immobilize a 350-point tank would not make the game more balanced. It would do the exact opposite.


You know a 4 point sguy can do that now right? You are talking about 10% the models stopping it vs 100% the models like it is now.

But i guess that isnt good enough for you, so lets just keep it the way it is now and let every unit stop vehicles.

Instead of arguing or saying something not helpful, then why no contribute and say "Well i feel this way is better"



Uh.

You know that the way you wrote the rule, vehicles can't fall back AT ALL versus other vehicles?

Because that's what I'm reading here. If you meant simply "vehicles cannot fall back AND SHOOT versus non-infantry/swarms" then I'm on board, lol.

The way you wrote the rule, my Piranha charges your Land raider, then they are stuck, 100% cannot fall back at all, until my piranha decides to leave.

EDIT: looks like you stealth changed it. Good on ya bud. Never admit you messed up on the internet lol.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 20:27:36


 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






That was a typo, my english isnt the best, they can fallback like normal, ADD rule that if against infantry/swarms they can shoot.

15k+ 12k+ 5k :Harlequin: 4k

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in us
Clousseau





East Bay, Ca, US

So basically guardsmen need a 3+ save? no thanks. These changes are awful.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 21:19:56


 Galas wrote:
I remember when Marmatag was a nooby, all shiney and full of joy. How playing the unbalanced mess of Warhammer40k in a ultra-competitive meta has changed you

Bharring wrote:
He'll actually *change his mind* in the presence of sufficient/sufficiently defended information. Heretic.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut






 Marmatag wrote:
So basically guardsmen need a 3+ save? no thanks. These changes are awful.


Everyone knows guardsmen are a problem, rules shouldnt be made from a broken unit, units should be changed if they are a problem. Thats my 2cents on your problem with it.

If you would have offer a different approach i would like to hear it, maybe +1sv and -1 to hit for hard cover, i would listen to you, but just whining? lol ok

At the same time, Marines would have a 2+ save vs -1ap, sounds good to me

15k+ 12k+ 5k :Harlequin: 4k

Reading/Writing LD, be kind!

https://maddpaint.blogspot.com 
   
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut




So eldar could be -2 or even -3 to hit in ruins ?
   
Made in us
Land Raider Pilot on Cruise Control




San Jose, CA

what about this, there should be a difference between cover & concealment;

concealment, -1 to hit
cover, +1 to save

that way you can always at least have one or the other. i.e.

a model behind a barricade can be shot at with no negative to hit, but would gain +1 to a save.

a model on the other side of a crater/woods/ruins would be shot at with -1 to but with no modifier to the save.

a model in the first floor of ruins would be shot at with a -1 to hit and gain a +1 to their save.

if you're within 1" or base contact with the terrain you would gain -1 to be hit. if you're completely within (all models)would also gain +1 to save even if you are not completely obscured from the shooter.

vehicles could be treated the same way but would retain the 50% rule currently. anything with mc/knight/etc keyword would only gain +1 to save as they're supposedly very large and wouldn't be as able to be concealed as something smaller. maybe if you have x # of models (10+) it could remove the cover save as there might not be enough room to dive for cover with too many bodies occupying a small space.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/07 22:18:32


 
   
Made in gb
Dark Angels Librarian with Book of Secrets





Cardiff

The crazy thing is... you can just add all of these rules when you play if you and your opponent want to. If these will enhance your enjoyment, use them!

 Stormonu wrote:
For me, the joy is in putting some good-looking models on the board and playing out a fantasy battle - not arguing over the poorly-made rules of some 3rd party who neither has any power over my play nor will be visiting me (and my opponent) to ensure we are "playing by the rules"
 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




These kinds of rules would have been easier to implement much earlier into the edition before there were so many other additions. Ignoring the issues that have been posted above (which highlights a few balance issues for sure), we also have the issue of things that simply "gain the benefit of cover" needing to be clarified to be light cover (such as the Prepared positions stratagem). This would be quite a lot of stuff to replace, and is only the tip of the iceberg when it comes to changes. Really, it's too late to add these kinds of rules into 40k.
   
Made in us
Second Story Man




Astonished of Heck

Ice_can wrote:A phirana is the tau equivalent of an attack bike not a tigershark or baraccuda which is what it sounds like you are describing.

Really? I thought it was closer to the Land Speeder, still, the point stands about it not being a air/space craft.

Are you a Wolf, a Sheep, or a Hound?
Megavolt wrote:They called me crazy…they called me insane…THEY CALLED ME LOONEY!! and boy, were they right.
 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Racerguy180 wrote:
what about this, there should be a difference between cover & concealment;

concealment, -1 to hit
cover, +1 to save

that way you can always at least have one or the other. i.e.

a model behind a barricade can be shot at with no negative to hit, but would gain +1 to a save.

a model on the other side of a crater/woods/ruins would be shot at with -1 to but with no modifier to the save.

a model in the first floor of ruins would be shot at with a -1 to hit and gain a +1 to their save.

if you're within 1" or base contact with the terrain you would gain -1 to be hit. if you're completely within (all models)would also gain +1 to save even if you are not completely obscured from the shooter.

vehicles could be treated the same way but would retain the 50% rule currently. anything with mc/knight/etc keyword would only gain +1 to save as they're supposedly very large and wouldn't be as able to be concealed as something smaller. maybe if you have x # of models (10+) it could remove the cover save as there might not be enough room to dive for cover with too many bodies occupying a small space.


The only issue I can see with this is that most people play with third party terrain and GW is very reluctant to provide rules for anything they don't currently sell. I can see an issue with trying to figure out what should be treated as what could be an issue for pick up games.
   
Made in gb
Slaanesh Chosen Marine Riding a Fiend





If you miss USRs just play 7th ed? Or HH, same thing really.

Please note, for those of you who play Chaos Daemons as a faction the term "Daemon" is potentially offensive. Instead, please play codex "Chaos: Mortally Challenged". Thank you. 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 NoiseMarine with Tinnitus wrote:
If you miss USRs just play 7th ed? Or HH, same thing really.


The current GW Keyword system is a complete mess already.
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 JohnnyHell wrote:
The crazy thing is... you can just add all of these rules when you play if you and your opponent want to. If these will enhance your enjoyment, use them!


Assuming you can get anyone to agree. It's much easier if GW fixes the rules so that you can just play a standard game.

There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in fi
Furious Raptor



Finland

I generally agree.

Cover could also be -X to wound. So soft cover -1 to wound rolls, and heavy cover -2 to wound rolls.

Or other alternatively soft cover +1 to save and heavy cover -1 to wound and +1 to save. This way heavy cover would be good against Aeldari and their Rending spam.

Generally all the -2 to any rolls should be avoided because they really feth up some units because we are on D6 system.
   
Made in au
Huge Hierodule





I like the Hammer of Wrath, but falling back does NOT need a buff.

P.S.A. I won't read your posts if you break it into a million separate quotes and make an eyesore of it. 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 Amishprn86 wrote:
5) Hammer of Wrath, when you charge a unit not in cover, on the turn that unit charge and you didnt lose any models from Overwtach, gain +1 attack (or str, idk what would be better for the game, i feel str is better honestly), you cannot gain Hammer of Wraith rule against any unit that your opponent used the stratagem "Counter-Offensive" against your unit.


This is such a weird rule, on top of being too complex for limited use. Charging units attacking first already represents the advantage of getting the charge, so this feels more like a "congratulations, you made all of your saves" buff than the power of charging into combat. And why is surviving overwatch with zero losses something that should be rewarded with a buff?

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 11:23:13


There is no such thing as a hobby without politics. "Leave politics at the door" is itself a political statement, an endorsement of the status quo and an attempt to silence dissenting voices. 
   
Made in us
Deathwing Terminator with Assault Cannon




Lisbon, Portugal

 Charistoph wrote:
Ice_can wrote:A phirana is the tau equivalent of an attack bike not a tigershark or baraccuda which is what it sounds like you are describing.

Really? I thought it was closer to the Land Speeder, still, the point stands about it not being a air/space craft.


I agree with you - piranahs are too large to be equal to bikes. Tetras (from forge world) are closer in size to bikes

40k Dark Angels
BFG Tau

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
"FW is unbalanced and going to ruin tournaments."
"Name one where it did that."
"IT JUST DOES OKAY!"

 
   
Made in gb
Waaagh! Ork Warboss






We tried USRs. They didn't work for a reason.

+++++There are currently NINETY TWO (92) documents required to play Warhammer 40,000 8th edition+++++
Disclaimer: My YMDC answers are from a "What the rules, as written (or modified by Special Snowflake FAQ) in the rulebooks, actually say" perspective, not a "What I wish the rules said" perspective. Even GW agrees with me, send an email to 40kfaq@gwplc.com for a confirmation reply "4. Apply The Rules As Written. If you still don’t have a satisfactory answer, use the rule just as it is written if you possibly can, even if you are not completely happy with the effect the rule has."
Because some people get their knickers in a twist, I'll list these RaW 'oddities' in my sig. Sadly GW's promise of fixing their broken rules has itself been broken. Zoom in to read them. RaW you cannot advance and then fire assault weapons, you can't shoot pistols if within 1" of an enemy; "minimum" ranges don't work; Seraphim have to re-roll saves that "fail" pre-re-roll; the game simply breaks if you ever have more than one wounded model in a unit; the game also breaks if a single rule ever tries to do multiple things simultaneously; Khârn punches himself in the face if he's not near some meatshields; Librarians on Bikes are locked to the Index power list, Howling Banshees can't declare a charge further than 12"; Spore Mines have an infinite range; Shroudpsalm technically doesn't do anything, only enemy models, not friendly models, have permission to move on top of a Skyshield Landing Pad; T'au have access to stackable Ignore Wounds (albeit against Mortal Wounds only); the T'au Early Warning Override Support System only works if a unit is "teleporting to the battlefield", not just arriving mid-battle; you can only ever use the Deathwatch Teleportarium Stratagem "once", and then never again in any battle after you use it; if a model splits fire, each weapon must target a different unit; a Tyrant Guard with Lashwhip can absorb an infinite amount of damage via Shieldwall between the time they die and the time they fight; Chapter Tactics on Successor Chapters don't actually do anything; Codex Leman Russ's can take an infinite amount of Hunter-Killer Missiles, Storm Bolters and Heavy Stubbers; Imothekh's 'Lord of the Storm' ability hits the "target unit" twice; "Airborne" units can't be charged by non-FLY units, but can be Heroically Intervened into, piled into, or consolidated into just fine by non-FLY units; Wave Serpents cannot be legally charged at by any model with a standard base; Slab Shields, along with the 'Take Cover!' stratagem no longer have any effect; and vehicles that are "slain" by a special effect do not trigger the "Explodes" ability; Taking any Forge World Space Marine Named Characters denies the use of a Chapter Tactic; and Chapter Tactics do not work on Successor Chapters.
--- Mathhammer tables for 2D6 and 3D6 Charging with various re-roll abilities --- Stylus CSS theme for DakkaDakka forums to hide black avatar background and fully hide ignored users. --- 
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





 BaconCatBug wrote:
We tried USRs. They didn't work for a reason.

because they kept nesting USR's within USR's like some scary russian doll filled with nastiness and poison.

8E has USR's still (Heroic intervention, FLY, VEHICLE, TITANIC etc.) all things that are generic across all factions and don't have 18 different iterations and complex wording that says the same thing

and I would support adding a few more to consolidate on the rules variations that cause a Lot of confusion that makes its way over to YMDC.

as long as one doesn't suddenly reference another and another ...

looking at Resurrection, scout moves, infiltrate, deepstrike, Look out Sir! (Saviour protocols of all variants) Feel No Pain and not many more

   
Made in fi
Furious Raptor



Finland

Many 'Deep Strike' abilities are USR's in general sense but every unit has different name for the rule with same mechanism with similar restrictions.
   
Made in us
Regular Dakkanaut





Ghorgul wrote:
Many 'Deep Strike' abilities are USR's in general sense but every unit has different name for the rule with same mechanism with similar restrictions.


and IMO the game suffers for it ..

USR - Universal special rule is now USR - Unique snowflake rule

what's wrong with MANTA STRIKE - this unit gains the <DEEPSTRIKE> ability ... T'au units with this ability slink around on the mothership until the commander calls them into play

sounds the same .. but gives GW the option to just make ONE FAQ /Errata/ BETA change to the keyword rather than issuing fixes to every model in every codex that has the various iterations of the same deployment method

I mean everyone I know does it ... "This unit is deepstriking ... I'm gonna roll FNP for these wounds I just took... this unit is FLYing over the terrain or out of combat.."

these are the definition of USRs that anyone at least one edition old will never get out of their vocabulary

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2019/01/08 12:42:00


 
   
Made in us
Speedy Swiftclaw Biker




Somerdale, NJ, USA

Racerguy180 wrote:
what about this, there should be a difference between cover & concealment;

concealment, -1 to hit
cover, +1 to save

that way you can always at least have one or the other. i.e.

a model behind a barricade can be shot at with no negative to hit, but would gain +1 to a save.

a model on the other side of a crater/woods/ruins would be shot at with -1 to but with no modifier to the save.

a model in the first floor of ruins would be shot at with a -1 to hit and gain a +1 to their save.

if you're within 1" or base contact with the terrain you would gain -1 to be hit. if you're completely within (all models)would also gain +1 to save even if you are not completely obscured from the shooter.

vehicles could be treated the same way but would retain the 50% rule currently. anything with mc/knight/etc keyword would only gain +1 to save as they're supposedly very large and wouldn't be as able to be concealed as something smaller. maybe if you have x # of models (10+) it could remove the cover save as there might not be enough room to dive for cover with too many bodies occupying a small space.


IMO This suggestion makes the most sense; would it bog the game down? Maybe a little bit, but I think it makes more sense then the current rule set.

Additionally I think there needs to be more of a penalty for falling back. Something similar to Dangerous Terrain; where if you fall back roll a die for each model falling back, on a 6 the unit suffers a Mortal Wound.

"The only problem with your genepool is that there wasn't a lifeguard on duty to prevent you from swimming."

"You either die a Morty, or you live long enough to see yourself become a Rick."

- 8k /// - 5k /// - 3k /// - 4k /// - 6k /// - 2k (take out the actual Genestealers, only 1.1k) 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: