Switch Theme:

Did you pick your faction/subfaction for its lore or rules?  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
Author Message

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
Ancient Chaos Terminator

The dark hollows of Kentucky

Simple question: When you choose to start a new army, do you make the decision of which army it will be based on your love of its lore, playstyle, look, etc, or do you choose it because of how strong its rules are?

Secondary question: If you choose your army based on its lore, do you try to use units that fit that lore, even if they aren't the best available to it?
Made in us
Chosen Baal Sec Youngblood


So far, purely based on lore/look/minis and zero percent based on the rules. That approach brought me first to the Blood Angels, and now to Deathskulls Orks.

I remember reading a bit of advice in White Dwarf that really stuck with me (paraphrasing): Choose an army you love, and are excited to paint and develop, and don't worry about how it's faring in the current edition/codex/etc. Sometimes it'll be up, sometimes it'll be down, but if you love it then you'll always enjoy it.

My blog, Yore, is full of 40k posts and photos ~ Blood Angels ~ Deathskulls Orks ~ Terrain 
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests

Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Depends on the army.

I chose my Ultramarines because at the time the difference between Chapters was the colour. I like blue.

Tyranids, again, didn't have specific sub-faction rules at the time. I now play Kraken because it's easy to remember and fallback/charge can be useful.

For my Guard they've always been a mix of Cadians, Mordians and Tallarns, with a heavy emphasis on Cadians. So I tend to pick with whatever fits the style of army.

Chaos I tend to play Red Corsairs these days because run+charge is easy to remember. And I like bringing CSMs, so the extra CP is nice. I'd play Word Bearers, but that seems like shooting myself in the foot.

Necrons I'm going to do my own thing once I organise that army. I have no love or attachment to any of the Dynasties they invented when they gave Necrons a personality update.

My custom Marines, the Iron Paladins, are a White Scar successor because run+charge is easy to remember.

My Eldar are Iyanden because I like Wraith constructs and I have heaps of them.

My Orks haven't really been given a try, but I'd either go Deathskulls or Blood Axes 'cause I like their fluff.

My Tau... don't give a damn. They're OpFor for the RPGs mostly. Ditto for my Dark Eldar. And also for my Harlies.

My Deathwatch are Deathwatch. You don't really get to pick there.

My Mechanicus isn't built, but I'll either do my own thing or Mars. I like the traditional red.

Dunno for my Knights. Haven't put much thought into it.

Death Guard and Thousand Sons are a bit like Deathwatch in that they are what they are. Not a great deal of choice (and who knows what of PA will survive to their Codices).

Like my AdMech, my Genestealer Cult army hasn't been built yet. I'm partial to the Ad-Mech based one, just 'cause that's fun, but I'll probably end up doing my own thing.

There aren't really factions for my Daemons, and the army doesn't have enough depth IMO for mono-builds, so it's just kind of every Daemon type thrown in together.

I have a lot of armies.

This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 02:30:07

Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut

Always models and lore. Never rules.

Thats the rules

Square Bases for Life!
AoS is pure garbage
Kill Primaris, Kill the Primarchs. They don't belong in 40K
40K is fantasy in space, not sci-fi 
Made in us
Second Story Man

Astonished of Heck

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Simple question: When you choose to start a new army, do you make the decision of which army it will be based on your love of its lore, playstyle, look, etc, or do you choose it because of how strong its rules are?

Secondary question: If you choose your army based on its lore, do you try to use units that fit that lore, even if they aren't the best available to it?

Yes, and yes.

My first army was Tau. I chose it because I wanted an army that could jump and shoot, and Tau were the best at it. There was little in the way of lore-specific army builds for Tau at the time.

My second army was Chaos. I started it because someone said there was no way a Chaos Army would ally with Tau. Well, my warband had a reason, Tau are very low on the psyker scale, and my warband found that peaceful. I built this army to be a Marine demi-company with Rubric Marines in support.

My third army was the Loyalist remnants of that Chaos warband and used the Black Templar rules. I chose their codex (they hadn't been integrated in to the Space Marines yet) because of the knightly imagery that was throughout the codex (Dark Angels were too monkish). This army was also built with a demi-company being the core in mind.

My 4th army was Necrons. I wanted an army where army building was easier and fewer decisions in unit composition, and Necrons were the best army for that.

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 ca
Dangerous Skeleton Champion

I actually chose based on which colour scheme looked the coolest.

Dark Angels
Imperial Knights
Orcs and Goblins
Tomb Kings
Wood Elves 
Made in au
Bush? No, Eldar Ranger

I don't think I could do a faction based on rules alone.. it'd be soooooooo boring imo

For 40k, I've got my Ynnari and from the couple games I've played, they're a bit ehhhhh but I just really like their lore! Yvraine just has a great backstory to her!

40K - Ynnari

AoS - Daughters of Khaine/Sylvaneth/Lumineth

Made in us
Ancient Ultramarine Venerable Dreadnought

Models. The look of the army always comes first.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter

Minis, lore. Then I get frustrated that the rules don't have anything to do with the lore, spend a lot of time ranting at GW, and go away to work on some homebrew fix or other.

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 
Made in gb
Executing Exarch

Lore..Nostalgia... Aesthetics. I didin't own a codex or played a single game when I picked up and painted my first squad of guardians.

I would wager most people dont pick their first army for rules. Because they probably dont know the rules

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/16 04:31:18

https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/772746.page#10378083 - My progress/failblog painting blog thingy

Eldar- 4436 pts

AngryAngel80 wrote:
I don't know, when I see awesome rules, I'm like " Baby, your rules looking so fine. Maybe I gotta add you to my first strike battalion eh ? "
Made in au
Anti-Armour Swiss Guard

Newcastle, OZ

I chose based on the models. Aesthetics.

There wasn't so much lore when I got into 40k back in RT.
I preferred the look of the Eldar to the orks or marines - and tbh, the chaos stuff was waaaaay too comic-book-badguy.

I'm OVER 50 (and so far over everyone's BS, too).
Old enough to know better, young enough to not give a ****.

That is not dead which can eternal lie ...

... and yet, with strange aeons, even death may die.
Made in de
Nurgle Chosen Marine on a Palanquin

Fluff, modelling opportunity and costs (money). Rules never played a role.
When I started at the end I had to decide between DG, Orks and Necrons. These were the most interesting armies for me. Necrons would have been the cheapest, Orks the most expensive, DG offered loads of options to convert and use 3rd Party minis so I started DG and never regretted it. Now, 10years later I finally got around to start Orks, too, but it'll probably take years until they're ready to play, so until then rules probably have changed several times.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 06:31:45

Made in se

The first time I got into 40k. back in 4th I picked chaos purely on lore and aesthetics.

Then when i got back into the game after pausing for 7+ years I picked harlequins based again on lore and aesthetics, but this time also play style. (as now I had ample more experience with tabletop games in general).

Then I picked SWs as my second army because I moved to scandanavia and wanted space vikings (also, wolves are cool XD) whilst simultaneously not wanting to have the exact same play style of every vanilla marine faction on the block.
So I guess that was also both lore and playstyle.

To be honest, I think GW does a pretty good job of representing flavour on the tabletop with their rules. I don't think they always do a good job AT the rules, or balancing, or power level. But i do think they do a good job at adding rules that feel like they belong to certain units, groups or armies.(most of the time anyways). So saying that, to some extent, lore and mechanics are a bit tied together.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/16 06:56:48

As an aside, as "infinite" rolls is actually impossible even if the FAQ "allows" it, then it will always be a non-zero chance to pass them all. Eventually the two players will die. If they pass the game on to their decendents, they too will eventually die. And, at the end of it all, the universe will experience heat death and it, too, will die. In the instance of "infinite" hits, we're talking more of functional infinity, rather than literal.

RAW you can't pass the game onto descendants, permissive ruleset. Unless we get an FAQ from GW.
Made in nz
Longtime Dakkanaut

Auckland, NZ

Rules change over time, often significantly. Even lore can be retconned. But a good paint scheme will always look good.
It's the only consideration I have when building an army.
Made in au
Violent Enforcer

Newcastle NSW

Lore, colour, can I freehand the faction symbol

The Four Winds Tribe has returned to claim the Underhive for House Escher

Deathwatch Kill Team: W9 D0 L2
Made in gb
Ambitious Archon

Port Carmine

Aesthetic, fluff/lore, then playstyle.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/16 15:26:28

Kabal of the Mon-keigh's Paw
Coven of the Screaming Statues

"Death is only a concern if you're both weak enough to be killed and dumb enough not to arrange your own resurrection." PM713
Made in de
Waaagh! Ork Warboss on Warbike

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Simple question: When you choose to start a new army, do you make the decision of which army it will be based on your love of its lore, playstyle, look, etc, or do you choose it because of how strong its rules are?


To clarify:
When I started orks, and thereby Warhammer 40k, it was because of the lore and models. A friend had his ork codex lying around and I decided to flip through it, and the fluff was just awesomely hilarious. The rules kind of were involved, because I remember the SAG random table had me up tears, though it was mostly description of marines being sprayed with blended snotlings from a warp tunnel rather than whatever strength and AP that result had. I decided to check their models and I instantly fell in love with Kaptin' Badrukk and the battlewagon. This is also is the reason why my avatar here on dakka always has been and still is a battlewagon.
I was unsure whether the game actually was the right thing since painting has always kept me from starting a miniature game, but luckily the legendary Assault on Black Reach starter set was available at that time, so I split one with a friend from college and had my first game a few weeks later.

Death Guard were a completely different story. A friend that I used to play MtG with wanted to start the game and he was thinking about starting DG because he could split the starter sets with our marine players, so I had a look at the rule and found a rather interesting army that heavily relied on synergies, having the right things in the right places and that would totally screw you over if you used units in the wrong way or when you moved to the wrong places. Which was totally the wrong army for my friend, since I knew from his MtG decks that he preferred hard-hitting straight forward strategies which are robust to failures - essentially space marines were perfect for him, especially the primaris line available at that time.
Since I was frustrated with how orks worked during the index era anyways, and I really liked the idea of a super-robust army with many interlocking rules, I offered to split the boxes with him.
That way so I ended up with an army whose fluff I knew literally nothing about. They have grown on me since then though, and I must say I really enjoy their fluff, especially how unique they are compared to other Legions.
My friend is a very happy Dark Angels player today, owning over 6000 points of green, black and white Marines.

Secondary question: If you choose your army based on its lore, do you try to use units that fit that lore, even if they aren't the best available to it?

Neither orks nor DG really limit you in that way unless you interpret the lore overly strict, though I usually select my plague fleet to match Typhus(Harbingers) or Mortarion(Mortarion's Anvil/Chosen Sons) if they are part of my army.

That said, I started painting my orks in a way that each unit was painted according to the clan which they would most likely hail from according to fluff - lootas are deff skulls, trukks and trukkboyz were evil suns, shootaboyz and MANz were bad moons, and so on. The warboss is bloodaxe, but since that clan is effectively "no clan", I usually play deff skulls instead because of their generalist approach or I match any special characters in my list. If bloodaxes get proper rules in the next codex I might switch back to them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/16 11:21:33

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
Dakka Veteran

Aesthetic always comes first, then lore and then playstyle.
Choosing an army just for the rules wouldn't make me happy if I didn't like the aesthetic at the same time.
Made in no
Huge Bone Giant


I picked my faction because I insidentaly had some models, because i liked the lore and because I liked the ludoistic aestetics of their rules.

Let me explain:

I got the second edition starter and bought some eldars. I loved the models. I also witnesed a localbtournament where one person played eldar and I was mighty impressed by how warp spider worked rules vice. I did not play that much back then, I was very young. Also rules vice in 2nd edition eldars had very spesific rules that was close to cheating.

I got half of the old 4th edition box some 20 years later. There where SM I got. I really liked the SW aesthetics, so I went with them. I also painted them purple and orange because I liked the colours!

I had the new Space Hulk game. I used those GS to build a tyranid list around the same time. Ever since 2nd edition i had a love for the bugs and for the GSC army that was sadly missing now.

Dark Eldars got a new range. I bought those. I like a good bad guy, and Dark Eldars felt like they where mustach twirling villains. The rules they had in 5th edition also felt a lot like the cheating rules of my eldars in 2nd edition. I kitbashed Baron Satonyx anf had the sort of common 30 model beast squad led by him

Deciding to play fantasy with som friends I picked tomb kings. It was an abysmal experience until they got a new army booknsome time after I started playing them. They where very weak. I had so many terrible 'pick up games.' In one my army was completly destroyed by two very inbalanced and undercosted empire mortars. After the new book they where really really really fun to play, and at an OK power level. The models where A+

I got my hand on some grey knight models that where gonnenbe thrown away. The ood metal once. I bought some plastic once to supplement them. I had some games with them but not many before 6th edition came.

All my armies suffered greatly under 6th edition rules. Flyers was the name of the game and the rules where so bad I quit.

Come 8th edition I start again. The game is getting better and better with each balance change. I have playrd nids so far. I all8ed in some GSC. And now I have a pure GSC army. They are really really bad and I focus on playing competetive lists just to stay in the game. But I have yet to winn with them in a pure force. Cool models though.

Generally the more powerfull a codex is the more I can take units I think are cool. If the codex is weak I focus more on playing competetive lists. I do not need to winn, but I enjoy having the chance to winn.

I am a dyslectic, so bear with me.

Dyslectics in a text based environment? Dakka is aware of you and sympathises with any troubles you have: http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/505863.page

Kronos biovore box fresh sporemines. Denying psykick powers since 2017.

Made in de
Lone Wolf Sentinel Pilot

Models/Lore with a sprinkle of playstyle.

I got in mostly for the modelling aspect, so one big consideration was "which kind of models would I have fun with building/painting/converting/kitbashing". Which led to Imperial Guard, Orks or AdMech. On par with that came the Lore regarding what faction I found most interesting within this setting and for which I would have the most fun inventing stories which put IG ahead of the other two.

Then came the sprinkle of playstyle, as looking at guard I thought I would like to have a kind of fast, skirmishing style army, that - for Guard standards - is not afraid of a bit of melee and from a glance through the doctrines I started with Tallarn. Funny enough reading more in the lore and creating my own custom regiment I slowly switched to a mixed tribal regiment containing mostly african/arabic styled minis (so again more lore/model aspect) and just try to represent them as good as possible with rules. So they currently are either Tallarn/DKOK or custom Wilderness Survivors/Slum fighters.

Long term if and when I will start into a second army it will be AdMech or Orks for the same reason: most interesting models (for me) and lore I can get my head around and invent some nice stories.

~3700 build and painted 
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut

NE Ohio, USA

"Models that I like" for the most part. I mean, if I dont like the models I'm not going to bother building/playing them...
After that comes some mix of rules/lore.
Sometimes there's an additional consideration - such as a league or shop based project that dictates choice.

Some of my armies & their reasons;

*Space Wolves - my 1st ever 40k army, from waaay back when they were new the 1st time. Honestly? Built 100% to abuse the rules of the time. In one specific tourney. Mission accomplished.
I also happen to like the minis & lore.

*Dark Angels (3rd co) - i got a good deal on a nicely painted DA army. 99%of the time they get played as DA.
Its a well painted, well rounded, compact force (fits in one case).
The main reason I picked it up was to be my traveling army when I was going to alot of cons, shows, etc.

*Mentor Legion
This one i built for the lore. It's the home to all my misc marine stuff that doesnt belong in any of my other marine armies.

*Ultramarines (9th co.)
This one was part of a shop project. 10 of us built an entire chapter. We drew company #s at random. I got the 9th. The project was UM because several of the people already had UM forces.

I built this force when they were nothing more than a super limited range with WD article rules. I built them for the novelty of being the only guy in the area to have this force.
Since then I've just expanded them based on models I like. Thus 9th ed has been pretty expensive....

I've always loved the models for the Swooping Hawks, Fire Dragons, & Wraith. So thats the bulk of my Eldar.

I have never cared one wit about their lore.
1) They look cool.
2) Shock & Awe. I built these guys a week (or was it two? GW ran some sort of early bird special on the army box of the time) Before they officially hit the shelves specifically to blindside a league i was in. They THOUGHT they knew what I was playing. With the early bird deal I had all the tau I needed 1 week before matches began.
Imagine their surprise when I fielded an entirely painted army that hadn't hit the stores yet....

I like WWII. I like tanks. I like the look of most of GWs guard stuff.
I've spent alot of $ building guard, more guard. & even more guard over the years....

Made in ie
Regular Dakkanaut


Playing is going to be rarity for me between PLAGUE and kids so it's all about lore and the hobby at the moment. DG and BA (and Necrons because I've got the Indomitus set and like the models a lot, plus I've Chaos Android nostalgia from the early 90s).
Made in se
Bonkers Buggy Driver with Rockets


It was based on artwork. Looking at the 3rd ed rule book cover made me do my black templars, and old rouge trade ork art influenced how i built and painted my orks.

For example i built some random banner bearing servitors from the 3rd ed cover art and I have no idea what they do in the lore or on the table top.

Brutal, but kunning!  
Made in us
Ultramarine Master with Gauntlets of Macragge

Upstate, New York

Picked my first army from the BA decals included in the RTB01 box.

Picked my second as I wanted an an additional force for RPG scenarios, and had some Ultra sheets from subsequent boxes.

Picked up my third army due to aesthetics, Mmmm Falcon Grav Tanks....

In early 3rd, I decided to continue expanding my Ultras over my BAs. Few reasons. One was painting blue was a lot better than red. Another was Ultras obeyed orders. This was at a time when each BA unit had a 1 in 6 chance each turn of having to move closer to the enemy. I’ve always picked armies that reduce randomness, and let me as the general win or loose games on my own merits. For most of the life of the game, Ultras played second fiddle to the other chapters, which could do everything they could, often better and cheeper, plus had extra whistles and bells. Ultras might not have had all that, but they did what I told them to do. Which ironically, fits their lore. Solid, dependable, reliable. Nothing fancy, just getting the job done.

So started for looks, stayed for the flavor of the army. Rules come and go, but I’ve never done a counts-as to jump ship to better ones.

Building armies I’m a semi-casual player who builds a lot of theme lists. But I always try to make them a TAC list, with at least one thing from each FOC slot. This fits the theme of the army, and tends to make better games IMHO. TAC lists avoid the worst of the rock/paper/scissors that you get with skew lists.

Ultramarines, 3rd Co. and friends, 13K+ Slowly growing 3Kish
Nevelon's Workbench: Ultramarines, Saim-Hann and other assorted oddities

Competition Index 
Made in pl
Longtime Dakkanaut

Army cost and the late owner of our store told me the army is going to be updated soon. And he wasn't lieing either, GK codex a codex after I bought it in like 3 weeks.

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
Heroic Senior Officer

 Gadzilla666 wrote:
Simple question: When you choose to start a new army, do you make the decision of which army it will be based on your love of its lore, playstyle, look, etc, or do you choose it because of how strong its rules are?

Secondary question: If you choose your army based on its lore, do you try to use units that fit that lore, even if they aren't the best available to it?

Always lore and models. Always always lore and models. It's the advice I give all the new players in my area. Sure, their playstyle and rules are considered, but ultimately the lore affects it the most. I like to pick units that are lore appropriate, but I will ultimately try to make a functional list as most of my area is decently competitive. So I may decide I want to make an infantry guard army, but I may splash in some more competitive units and leave bad options like flamers and grenade launchers out.

Rules change all the time. Things get good, then they're trash, then they're mediocre, etc. Buying an army just because it's rules are good is a common mistake I see new players do because by the time their army is done their rules suck and they're stuck with an army they hate painting and playing. Unless you're a top tier competitive player with money to burn, the wise choice is to only buy armies you like the look and lore of and stick with them. Plus if you stick with a couple core armies you'll get much better at the game in a set span of time rather than chasing the meta and never really learning a codex.

'I've played Guard for years, and the best piece of advice is to always utilize the Guard's best special rule: "we roll more dice than you" ' - stormleader

"Sector Imperialis: 25mm and 40mm Round Bases (40+20) 26€ (Including 32 skulls for basing) " GW design philosophy in a nutshell  
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut

I picked up Marines in 8th when they were at their absolute nadir because they were my first army back in 2nd ed., ...and also because I've got a strong "gaming hipster" streak.

I picked up Slanneshi Daemons mid-8th because another local player had picked up Wrath and Rapture for the Khorne and was really struggling with getting anything out of the Slannesh half of the box. He's a good kid and I figured putting some cash in his pocket for more of what interested him was good karma for me, ...and nobody locally though Slannesh could work as a non-soup army and that gaming hipster streak reared it's head again.

I picked up Tyranids in 9th because they were my third army back in the day, and they're one of the only armies besides Marines where I like almost everything in the model range. ...and also "Who's up for a game?" "Ugh." "I brought 'nids instead of Marines." "Ooh pick me, pick me!"

So I do have a strong tendency to pick armies based on both looks and power level, but it's always urging me to buy into the hot garbage.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/11/16 14:23:47

Made in gb
Decrepit Dakkanaut


Nearly all my army choices start and end with the visual look of the models themselves. They are what I'll be spending the most amount of time dealing with so I've got to enjoy their look and style to make it worth me investing into them.

After that comes lore and playstyle. Lore is the fluff and background and backbone to the imagination of the army. It's secondary to me in a sense that the lore does shift around and most of GW's armies have lore at only a very generalist level not in depth specifics that are iron clad.
Playstyle is important to me because it pairs with the models. I don't want an army where I can't field models I like and where I have to field ones I don't like. This isn't pure power-gaming, its also just looking at the practical sensible side of it. Eg if the core troops are models I dislike then I'm less likely to pick that army up; unless there are other ways to build it which avoid those models. And yes if there's a way or a theme where I can build the army to a lore or story or idea then yeah I'll do it. Heck I'm slowly working toward an all Deathrider army of Ossiarchs for AoS so that I can do a full cavalry charge with them. The rules allow me to do so and sure it might not be as powerful as other options but it will look very cool and I really like the models.

I never EVER pick "subfactions" within an army because inevitably they change and, beyond marines, they are often just a few lines of rule changes. Most often they focus on a tactical niche - eg one will be good at close combat; another artillery; another psychic units etc... To me they are more themes to build a list around rather than armies to build around. Because larger armies have diverse model options and whilst you might want to build the army close combat focused one week; next range and artillery might be what I want. There's no point, to me, to theme my army fully around the close combat variation only.

Eg I really like marines in lore and artwork and computer games. I enjoy them at a conceptual/imagination level. Yet at the same time I've never liked the models enough to want to own them. I can see and enjoy the style GW goes for, I just don't want to spend my money to own them.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/11/16 14:39:36

Made in us
Decrepit Dakkanaut

Typically lore or theme.

I want to differentiate between lore and theme here, a bit, because it can be confusing, but I'll refrain. Essentially, I pick the subfaction rules that most closely align to how I envision the army playing "in real life" (of warhammer 40k).
Made in gb
Twisted Trueborn with Blaster

The models.
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: