Switch Theme:

How do you feel about stratagems currently? (Multiple choice poll)  [RSS] Share on facebook Share on Twitter Submit to Reddit
»
Poll
How do you feel about stratagems?
They're great!
They're okay.
They're bad.
They should be cheaper.
They should cost more.
They cost the right amount.
There should be more.
There should be less.
There is the right amout
They have potential but need a rework.

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 ie
Ruthless Rafkin





Title.
I'm curious about this because GW are puting a lot of time and effort around strats and I'm wondering its paying off for them. From some discussion on here it looks like people generally don't like the direction they've gone with them but we'll see. Though this is Dakka so I doubt it, but then its Dakka so I'm sure there'll be complaints about the poll being biased or not including enough options.


 
   
Made in us
Ultramarine Librarian with Freaky Familiar






^Poll is too good, didn't vote.

J/k. Less Strats please. Like 90% fewer.

And They Shall Not Fit Through Doors!!!

Tyranid Army Progress -- With Classic Warriors!:
https://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/743240.page#9671598 
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




Strats as a concept *could* work. They're definitely not all bad. However, their execution so far has has some issues. They're not very well internally balanced, so half of them never get used. Fluffy wargear and special abilities got rolled into them meaning you can't utilize those cool options unless they're worth sinking CP into. Any strat that basically says, "Kill more betterer," is prone to balance problems and is also just kind of dull. They seem to sometimes be used as a source of rules that really ought to be spread throughout an army (ex: Lightning Fast Reactions being a poor replacement for eldar having access to skimmers moving fast and Jink.)

Those issues haven't really been solved in 9th, but 9th edition books are also introducing a bunch of other new buffs (acts of faith, litanies, sacred rites/doctrines, etc.). So stratagems still don't feel very polished, but they DO feel kind of bloated.

Basically, there's a "budget" of how many different subsystems you can pack into a game before it's just too busy. Stratagems aren't horrible, but they're also not necessarily solid enough to justify how much of that budget they're taking up.
   
Made in us
Gore-Soaked Lunatic Witchhunter







To me the one thing that Warhammer's always done better than anyone else in wargaming was scalability; everything else is better-designed but only really works in a narrow range (~50-75pts for Warmachine, ~200-400pts for Infinity, etc.). Warhammer used to sort of work from 500pts all the way up to 10,000+pt Apocalypse games. I know CP scale with the game size, but the degree to which the game runs on stratagems at this point and the fact that you only get to buff one unit with them (taken along with the only one duplicate psychic cast attempt each turn) means the game only really works in the 1k-2k range; below 1k one stratagem can swing the game way too easily, above 2k your opponent can ignore the thing with the stratagem on it and just kill other things too easily.

(Yes, I know "Apocalypse" is an alternate ruleset now, I don't like it very much. I'd prefer making the game actually scale again.)

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 de
Longtime Dakkanaut



Bamberg / Erlangen

Picked
- They're okay
- They cost the right amount
- There should be less

I like them, but some stuff should be reverted back to Wargear or unit abilities.

Imperial Guard Space Marines
 
   
Made in pt
Fireknife Shas'el




Lisbon, Portugal

Don't like them at all. Especially in the Tau case, which they killed a bunch of upgrades to make them stratagems (and a lot of them are terrible).

Sadly, they are here to stay.

KT, 40k, AI & BFG: / SW Legion & X-Wing: CIS / MCP

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

 Shadenuat wrote:
Voted Astra Militarum for a chance for them to get nerfed instead of my own army.
 
   
Made in au
Owns Whole Set of Skullz Techpriests






Versteckt in den Schatten deines Geistes.

Voted for:

They're ok.
There should be less of them.
They need a rework.

Strats need to focus more on manoeuvre and positioning, deployment, and actual strategic assets. There should be far fewer 'tactical' strats, that just give you extra attacks or make you hit harder. Those are silly on even a conceptual level, let alone how you balance them.

There should be next to no "gotcha" reactionary strats (things like Transhuman Physiology are just dumb - I sacrifice an abstracted strategic resource and suddenly this unit of Marines, but only Primaris Marines, is tougher? What?). Overwatch would be an exception here, as that makes sense as a strat.

And there should be in-game ZERO equipment strats (smoke launchers, tankbusta bombs, etc.). Those should remain wargear upgrades you pay points for.

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

 
   
Made in gb
Stalwart Tribune





Some strats, which are more unit specific abilities would probably make more sense at 0CP if they must remain as strats - this way you can only have 1 unit do the ability but it does not cost anything.
sure other strats like additional WL traits/relics etc are fine to cost you CP though.

Praise the Omnissiah

About 4k of .

Imperial Knights (Valiant, Warden & Armigers)

Some Misc. Imperium units etc. Assassins...

About 2k of  
   
Made in us
Longtime Dakkanaut




NE Ohio, USA

1st, there should be way less of them.
If something is a form of equipment (ex: Smoke launchers or melta-bombs), or something that any unit should logically be able to do (ex: Overwatch)? It should go. Some should revert back to being unit upgrades that you simply pay for. Others, like overwatch, simply options that trigger.

2nd, the general idea is OK - but needs work.
   
Made in gb
Been Around the Block





Also voted for:
They're ok.
There should be less of them.
They need a rework.

A nice idea but there is too many of them and it's too difficult to remember what I and my opponent can do each turn.
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut





I feel strrategems are a good addition to the game; however, I would make the following changes:

- Limit how many can be take in each game (you kind of make a stratagem 'deck'). There's no randomisation, you know and can access any strat you have as needed and CP will allow but you can only take a limited number depending on the point size. For example: 0-500 = 5 strats, 501-1000 = 7 strats, 1001 - 1500 = 9 strats, 1501 - 2000 = 11 strats, 2001+ = 15 strats

- Ensure many of them are shared between all codexes. So if every Codex aims to have 25 strats to select from, then 15 of them should be exactly the same for every codex.

- Keep the re-roll, LD and overwatch as universal strats that exist outside the above limits.


I appreciate some of these feed into the "list building wins the game" but that's kind of already the meta of 40k and it doesn't detract from the fact you'd still need strategies around which strats to have and then apply them effectively.

As for what strats actually do in game, i'd defer to other ideas as I am fine either way. Have them as tactical manoeuvres or strategic effects.


(Disclaimer: numbers are arbitrary examples and not academically peer reviewed so avoid any panty twisting).

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2021/08/04 13:08:36


- 10,000 pts CSM  
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

I voted that stratagems are bad:
- They have nothing to do with HQs (so, unlike AoS, they don't make non-Caster HQs more relevant).
- They certainly don't help with verisimilitude ("Oh no, our Battle Brothers have transhuman physiology, this means we no longer have transhuman physiology for some reason!")
- Many could be (and previously were) represented perfectly fine with wargear and points.
- Others seem like stuff that should just be baked into the core rules or unit abilities ("For 1 turn only, a single transport in your army is able to fulfil the sole function of a transport!").
- Then, of course, we have the "kill more" stratagems, which let a unit randomly fight twice or get rerolls to wound or some other such.

I was initially going to say that if you removed the above and tied the few remaining Stratagems to HQs (replacing auras), then you might be left with something passable.

However, on reflection, I'm scratching my head as to what they actually add to the game. Once you start taking away all the stratagems that should be wargear or unit abilities, or that add nothing to the game, I'm not sure there's enough left to build around or even that the system is worth saving in the first place.

Frankly, if you want all armies to have some sort of shared mechanic, I think something like Miracle Dice would be a *vastly* better system to build around.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

From having spoken to my friends about this, who like strategems, they like the flavour.

They don't really care about anything beyond "it's cool that I get a special thing that does a useful thing".
Gotchas aren't a problem, you just need to learn the rules.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 10:21:51


 
   
Made in gb
Killer Klaivex




The dark behind the eyes.

 kirotheavenger wrote:
Gotchas aren't a problem, you just need to learn the rules.


*Looks at the sheer volume of Stratagems in codices, codex-supplements, campaign books, WD content, other random content etc.*

Cool. Maybe for an encore I could learn Chinese.

 the_scotsman wrote:
Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"

 Argive wrote:
GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.


 Andilus Greatsword wrote:

"Prepare to open fire at that towering Wraithknight!"
"ARE YOU DAFT MAN!?! YOU MIGHT HIT THE MEN WHO COME UP TO ITS ANKLES!!!"


Akiasura wrote:
I hate to sound like a serial killer, but I'll be reaching for my friend occam's razor yet again.


 insaniak wrote:

You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.

Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
 
   
Made in gb
Ship's Officer





Bristol (UK)

 vipoid wrote:
 kirotheavenger wrote:
Gotchas aren't a problem, you just need to learn the rules.


*Looks at the sheer volume of Stratagems in codices, codex-supplements, campaign books, WD content, other random content etc.*

Cool. Maybe for an encore I could learn Chinese.

I agree.
TBH I don't even think they agree with the statement either. I think it's just a case of them enjoying strategems and feeling obligated to dismiss every criticism of them at all. That seems increasingly common in arguments in general, things have to either be perfect or the antithesis, middle ground does not exist.
   
Made in dk
Pyro Pilot of a Triach Stalker






The poll is really missing an option for the people that want Stratagems gone altogether. I guess maybe that's what the "bad" option is for, but I think in their current incarnation Stratagems are bad for the game, but I also believe that with the right execution they could be awesome.

Stratagems can help even out results and make the game more based on skill rather than luck and I think that's a good thing. Stratagems that buff damage can be okay, especially on melee units since it's random whether you make your charge at all, being able to supercharge any one of the units that make a good charge roll rather than needing every charge roll to be a success is neat.

Semper wrote:
I feel strrategems are a good addition to the game; however, I would make the following changes:

- Limit how many can be take in each game
Spoiler:
(you kind of make a stratagem 'deck'). There's no randomisation, you know and can access any strat you have as needed but you can only take a limited number depending on the point size. For example: 0-500 = 5 strats, 501-1000 = 7 strats, 1001 - 1500 = 9 strats, 1501 - 2000 = 11 strats, 2001+ = 15 strats

- Ensure many of them are shared between all codexes. So if every Codex aims to have 25 strats to select from, then 15 of them should be exactly the same for every codex.

- Keep the re-roll, LD and overwatch as universal strats that exist outside the above limits.


I appreciate some of these feed into the "list building wins the game" but that's kind of already the meta of 40k and it doesn't detract from the fact you'd still need strategies around which strats to have and then apply them effectively.

As for what strats actually do in game, i'd defer to other ideas as I am fine either way. Have them as tactical manoeuvres or strategic effects.


(Disclaimer: numbers are arbitrary examples and not academically peer reviewed so avoid any panty twisting).

I wouldn't have any faction unique ones and I'd limit it to 5 (CP re-roll and the rest would be optional inclusion rather than bonuses), then get rid chapter tactics, combat doctrines and super doctrines. Yes, picking bad Stratagems would suck, but it would suck ten times less than trying to make Imperial Fists thunderhammer Terminators and Vindicators work and GW could no longer force Iyanden players to use more Guardians than Wraithguard.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 10:46:52


 
   
Made in it
Gargantuan Gargant




Italy

I don't like how they are implemented. Right now we have a few stratagems that are auto-take, something else that is situational and a significant portion of the list that never sees the game.

I think pre-game stratagems like additional relics, warlord traits, deep strike, stats upgrades etc.. could have been implemented by paying points, and units locked stratagems could have been special rules included in the units' datasheets, maybe with one use per game only. Same for chapter/klan/dynasty locked stratagems, they could have simply been one use only special rules.

I'd remove CPs entirely, banning generic re-rolls and making additional detachments cost points as well.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 10:49:26



 
   
Made in de
Longtime Dakkanaut





They are bad. A mechanic which deleted numerous gear such as auspex scanners to be usable only a couple of times during a match.
   
Made in ie
Ruthless Rafkin





 vict0988 wrote:
The poll is really missing an option for the people that want Stratagems gone altogether.


I thought about it but GW has you build armies around CP, added a whole phase for CP management and have numerous rules in codexes that reference CP so I don't think we'll be rid of them any time soon unless GW thinks of another use for CP.


 
   
Made in us
Shadowy Grot Kommittee Memba






Yet another mechanic that started out a good idea that got GW'd on over time.

mostly the problem with their execution has been the one-at-a-time codex rollout.

For most of 8th, you'd have factions with zero stratagems playing vs factions with all the crazy 8th-ed tier power level strats.

And now, in 9th, when theyre trying to tone them down and make them healthier, you've still got factions with the old stupid power level strats playing against newer factions that have the new toned down strats, which leads to a lot of the unit imbalance people are currently griping about.


"I can't believe all these tryhard WAACs out there just care about winning all the time when it's supposed to be a game for fun!!!!!!! Also here's my 27 page essay on why marines are OP and Orkz should get a bunch of OP rules so I can win more games

-the_scotsman"

-ERJAK 
   
Made in us
Krazed Killa Kan






I hate the concept for the most part. It shifts a lot of unit abilities to strats which greatly limits the number of units that can do a certain action and ties it to some sort of resource (makes me think of munitions in Company of Heroes). This in particular hurts MSU units which might want to have 2-3 different units doing something like throwing an EMP grenade but apparently the army is limited to just 1 per turn (I guess it's hand delivered by a logistics drone and the Tau only have 1 such drone on the battlefield?). It also ends up being used for mindless buffs like "+1 to wound" or worse creates gotcha moments because not every player is going to memorize the entire catalog of strats for their opponent's army (when 40k has well over a dozen unique codexes). It feels kinda MtG like where a sentence such as "Player A: I'm going to shoot with my unit and tap/spend a command point to get +1(/+1) to my attack. Player B: I will tap/play 1 command point to use my smoke screen card/strat to get -1 to hit." It might seem like it's a very minor cherry picked example and not all that different from declaring a unit is jinking or using markerlights but the whole paying a global resource to use an ability gives me MtG flashbacks and takes me right out of the game.

In general strats create the illusion of depth and choice but it doesn't really add much to the game's strategic complexity except having more junk to memorize (I thought 8th/9th was suppose to be less rules bloaty.... Somehow having USRs that every army shares is bad but having to memorize multiple armies unique stratagems is somehow better?). Ugh I just zogging hate the mechanic so much in tabletop 40k.

"Hold my shoota, I'm goin in"
Armies (7th edition points)
7000+ Points Death Skullz
4000 Points
+ + 3000 Points "The Fiery Heart of the Emperor"
3500 Points "Void Kraken" Space Marines
3000 Points "Bard's Booze Cruise" 
   
Made in us
Oozing Plague Marine Terminator





I havent played any 9th edition armies because I don't want to have to re-learn all these stupid Stratagem synergies all over again.

Stratagems are a crutch. They should have been left for Narrative games. They slow the game down. They give unfair advantages. If a unit should have a special rule, give it a special rule. Don't leave info scattered over multiple pages and books.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2021/08/04 12:33:24


 
   
Made in au
Virulent Space Marine dedicated to Nurgle





I really like strategems, and particularly like the not-alway-on buff idea. It speaks to me of leaning into a unit- or army-type, with a fluff equivalent of the general pre-preparing a few nifty manouevres. But I'd prefer a shift towards something more like Sigmar. Keep those small number of 'Extra Trait/Relic' and put-in-reserve strategems, and move them to the core rule book. Then give every unit one stratagem it can use on its datasheet.

The benefits here are:
1) Less to remember, both for the player and their opponent.
2) Less chance a wide-ranging strategem can go nuts on one unit. eg. VotLW being necessary to make CSM good, but just being used to make Termies too good by comparison.
3) A better way, then, to balance units.
3a) Maybe a strong stat unit gets a very situational buff. eg. Marines get a stronger statline, but situational buffs; GSC get a weaker statline, but get more reliably useful buffs.
3b) Maybe a unit is super special in getting two strategems that can be used - a particularly good way, in my mind, to balance troops.
4) A good way to balance sub-factions. eg. Iron Warriors give Obliterators a stronger/extra strategem.

By all means, hand out CP more freely than AoS (as AoS 3.0 is starting to do), but restrict them to individual data sheets.

Death Guard: 6000pts
Sisters of Battle: 1750pts 
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





I voted that they're okay- mostly because I have some issues with the detachment system for fringe units- like Inquisition Detachments, which always have to pay CP since it's not possible to make an Inquisition Patrol, Battalion or Brigade.

Like many, I'm not sure that all of the equipment that got converted to strats needed to be converted- though I do understand that it was done to limit how many units can use a given equipment ability per turn and to add an opportunity cost to that choice.

One of the cool interactions I like are abilities that let you use strats at a reduced cost- usually these are Crusade abilities- for example, there's a Deathwatch battle honour that allows a unit to use Special Issue Ammo for free- which is beautiful- it enables Primaris to use SIA, but only one unit per turn, which allows the firstborn to still really shine.

One comment that I frequently see in forums that bothers me somewhat is that 8th/9th has no tactical depth. I am sorry that people don't perceive strategems as tactics, but that is absolutely what they were intended to be, and they do require skill to use effectively. Maybe it's because I also like Collectible Card Games and things like Feats which were very prominent in 3.5 D&D, but who's impact has been severely curtailed in 5ed.

I never had trouble perceiving them as strategies/ tactics. To me, each and every use of a strat feels like a story event.

The army-wide always on stuff that most people on this forum talk about as "tactics" ie. pinning weapons, going to ground, blast templates and armour facings (which do increase the importance of positioning) do not feel as much like story events/ game shifting tactics to me. They just feel like common sense things that the entire army has to think about all the time. I didn't mind these features of the game when they were present, but I don't miss them either- I do think strats (for the most part) make the game more interesting.

I also like the way that strats can be used to express the character of a faction or sub-faction; pinning, going to ground, blast templates etc. by their general and ubiquitous, always on nature cannot be used to do this.

Similarly, I like the way strats can be derived from Theatres of War, campaign settings or controlled objectives/ terrain.

Again, I've always liked the elements of the game that give it a role-playing/ story feel. Strats do that for me. Your mileage may vary.
   
Made in us
Sure Space Wolves Land Raider Pilot




Somerdale, NJ, USA

Way too many "necessary" strats and way too many in general.

"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 /// - 5k /// - 6k /// - 6k /// - 4k /// - 4k 
   
Made in gb
Regular Dakkanaut




All the equipment stratagems should either be pre-game purchases like relic stratagems, or should be removed in favour of pointed equipment upgrades.

All those generic stratagems that are printed in all codices with different names should just move to the core book.

And finally, to add to those above who have already said it: when you build your army list, you should have to pick a limited hand of stratagems to use. Something like 5. Warlord traits or relics could let you pick one more.

I also love the idea or getting rid of HQ auras and replacing them with stratagems which are tied to that HQ type.

Reducing the damage stratagems is a good idea, but the gotcha ones have strategic merit - you need to tease command points out of your opponent so they can't play those gotchas, or force them to pick between two situations where they want to use that stratagem.
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





Strats are a plague that highlights how shallow the design of the game has become.

“Spend two wombo points to play the game”

The lack depth is shocking.
   
Made in ca
Longtime Dakkanaut





MrPieChee wrote:


And finally, to add to those above who have already said it: when you build your army list, you should have to pick a limited hand of stratagems to use. Something like 5. Warlord traits or relics could let you pick one more.



I think realistically, most players do this anyway, without being asked to.

Seriously, who hasn't gone through their strat list and compiled a favourites list?

I take it a step further- I write the exact text of any strat I'm likely to use in a given game on a 3x5 index card with a page number for reference- sure, I could buy GW's cards, but I'd rather put that money into models and index cards are cheap. Granted, I usually end up with more than 5, but never more than 10. I offer to let my opponent look at them before and during the game- especially if my opponent is newb. Usually my opponents don't bother; if they take me up on it, I get to ask them about their go-to strats- if they don't take me up on it, I don't ask.

I would be okay with GW making a strat list a mandated feature of the game, I just think that most folks kinda do this without being asked anyway. Some strats are real duds. I'm also mostly playing at 25 PL these days, so I don't have a lot of CP to throw around, and neither does my opponent. My opinion might change once my Crusades grow to Strike Force level.
   
Made in gb
Longtime Dakkanaut




PenitentJake wrote:


One comment that I frequently see in forums that bothers me somewhat is that 8th/9th has no tactical depth. I am sorry that people don't perceive strategems as tactics, but that is absolutely what they were intended to be, and they do require skill to use effectively. Maybe it's because I also like Collectible Card Games and things like Feats which were very prominent in 3.5 D&D, but who's impact has been severely curtailed in 5ed.


What they're intended to be and what they are, are two very different things. I'm not even sure they were ever intended to add tactical depth. I certainly don't agree they require skill to use effectively. Far too many of them are either so good you'll use them every turn or just useless. There are a few that can maybe make a difference when used at a crucial moment, but doing so is more an exercise in remembering some niche strat exists rather than tactical genius on the player's part.

PenitentJake wrote:

I never had trouble perceiving them as strategies/ tactics. To me, each and every use of a strat feels like a story event.


I'm not sure what these two sentences have to do with one another. Being a "story event" doesn't make something tactical. Having one unit of Primaris shrug off a couple of melta shots thanks to Transhuman may be all cinematic and stuff, but it becomes hilariously stupid when doing so means the identical squad beside them gets annihilated by Heavy Bolters because their comrades had used all the superman points for the phase.

PenitentJake wrote:

I also like the way that strats can be used to express the character of a faction or sub-faction; pinning, going to ground, blast templates etc. by their general and ubiquitous, always on nature cannot be used to do this.


We never needed strats for that before. I don't think Blood Angels gained much extra character or narrative weight thanks to Forlorn Fury, for example. Nor did Necrons greatly benefit in background terms from Disintegration Capacitors. There are so many ways to make an army characterful and match its background without stratagems I can't see the argument for including them for that reason.
   
Made in us
Insect-Infested Nurgle Chaos Lord






They are bad and whoever's idea it was to implement them into 40k should feel bad.

I signed up to play a wargame, not MTG with toy soldiers.



A GW fan walks into a bar, buys the same drink as yesterday but pays more.

""Unite" is a human word, ... join me or die."

If you break apart my or anyone else's posts line by line I will not read them. 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K General Discussion
Go to: