Switch Theme:

Grots and the ADL  [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 au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Murrdox wrote:
However, height is not uniform across all armies. Thus an Imperial ADL model does not necessarily accommodate all codexes equally. .

So the question then becomes - On what basis do you assume that this was not a deliberate design decision by GW?

 
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






What page is the ork ADL pictured on? The only one I have seen is an imperial one used as an example. if they HAVE produced an ADL designed specifically for orks, I'm sure most ork players would love to check it out. If you cant find the page number, give us the link to it on the GW site. The only I've seen there is an imperial one and as some have said, using an imperial one for an ork army is cheating as it would be a conversion or counts as.
The closest I have seen are the ork barricades and I am greatly interested to also see the official representation of the guns made by orks that comes with it. I'll be anxious to see the official ork version of the bastion, landing platform and fortress of redemption as well because currently, we only have the imperial examples of them.

"So the question then becomes - On what basis do you assume that this was not a deliberate design decision by GW? " This should be fairly easy to clear up. Dakka Dakka is a large website dedicated to the hobby and I am sure that at least one member of the GW dev teams has found their way here at one point in time or another. An officialy rules clarification sent to Jervis or someone else high up in GW would get us an official statement. We would only need to ask ...
1. Are conversions/counts as/ and so forth allowed in games if they are done for coolness value and to keep the model in keeping with the fluff of the army? in this instance so that a model such as the ADL may serve the same purpose for the army that the imperial guard ADL serves the imperial guard. they would only need to give us a "yes you can" or a "no you cant".
Even so, a local gaming club has the right to have house rules that gainsay the official answer that we get from GW. Until then we are just a bunch of gamers squabbling/quibbling over different vies and interpretations.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 19:41:11


clively wrote:
"EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)

Seems a few of you have not read this... http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Murrdox wrote:
First of all - it's not reasonable for you to request a rules basis for model customization. GW encourages model conversion and customizations of all kinds

They used to. Not so much these days. Seriously, pick up the latest Chaos Codex (the army most open for conversions) ... have a look through the model gallery in there, and see how many conversions you can find.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Murrdox wrote:
The official GW model of the ADL is designed for an Imperial army.

Is it?

Or is it designed for every army and just modelled off an Imperial design?

Again, on what basis are you making this assumption?



Asking Orks to pay the same amount of points for an Infantry Barricade that they cannot fully benefit from is actually a PENALTY for the Orks.

Sure. But is it an unintentional one, or did GW not intend for every army to be able to make full use of the ADL with every type of infantry they have access to?


An Ork conversion that allows for all Ork infantry to use the ADL as it is intended... as an infantry barricade... is thus not modeling for advantage.

If you modify a fortification in a way that allows you to shoot with a model that would otherwise be unable to do so, that's pretty much the definition of modelling for advantage.

You're basing your entire argument on the assumption that GW intended for every unit to be able to benefit equally from the ADL. The obvious response to that was that if they really intended for that, given the lack of army-specific ADLs, wouldn't they have just made the stock ADL a little shorter?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 EVIL INC wrote:
What page is the ork ADL pictured on?

There is no Ork ADL. There is also no Imperial ADL.

There is an ADL that is an Imperial design, that is available to all armies.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/04 19:39:10


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 EVIL INC wrote:
What page is the ork ADL pictured on?


Show me what page the Looted Wagon is on. Show me what model I should be using for Wazdakka. Explain why I can't use Deffkoptas converted into Buggies instead of GW's 2nd Edition Ork Buggies that no one uses.

You can argue that altering the height of the dimensions of the ADL is an illegal conversion, but arguing that you can't do any conversions won't accomplish much.
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






There is only the imperial one. Only imperials use the Aquila as a symbol. Murrdox , the point I'm saying is that to use the imperial one for an ork army is cheating by the standards of who we are speaking to. They claim that to do ANY conversion of any kind is cheating. I feel that said conversions to look cool and to make a model actually fit your army is within the scope of the game. They disagree with that and claim that no matter what it is or for what reasons it is mfa (even when the disadvantages outweighth any supposed advantages) and thus cheating.

Which again, brings us back to my point of the opinions that matter are the opinions of the people you actually play with/against.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 19:47:45


clively wrote:
"EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)

Seems a few of you have not read this... http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

 EVIL INC wrote:
There is only the imperial one. Only imperials use the Aquila as a symbol.

No, that is the Aegis defense line , it is not Imperial Aegis Defense Line, it is simply an Aegis defense line (Page 114) (The index also says "Aegis Defence Lines...114")

No mention of Imperial in there at all, so this is available to Tyranids, Orks, Tau Etc...

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 19:47:27


"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in us
Lord Commander in a Plush Chair






 EVIL INC wrote:
What page is the ork ADL pictured on?


There is no such thing as an Ork ADL.

There is only an ADL and it is pictured in the rulebook.

Orks can take [i]THAT[i/] ADL, Just Like they can take the Bastion Pictured in the rules, or the Skyshield Landing Pad, or the Fortress of Redemption, Or the firestorm redoubt, or the Macro Cannon, or the Vengence weapon battery, or the Aquilla Strongpoint.

There is no such thing as Ork Fortifications, just like there is no such thing as Tau fortifications, or Eldar Fortifications.


This is my Rulebook. There are many Like it, but this one is mine. Without me, my rulebook is useless. Without my rulebook, I am useless.
Stop looking for buzz words and start reading the whole sentences.



 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 insaniak wrote:

You're basing your entire argument on the assumption that GW intended for every unit to be able to benefit equally from the ADL. The obvious response to that was that if they really intended for that, given the lack of army-specific ADLs, wouldn't they have just made the stock ADL a little shorter?


I don't think that's the only basis for my argument, but it's essentially correct.

However, Ork players especially are used to being given the short-stick by GW, and we've had a very long history of making up for that by converting things on our own. Battlewagons, Looted Wagons, Wazdakka, Flash Gitz, Buggies... all these are common Ork conversions which in some cases have no model, and in other cases can be modeled to fire from different angles, heights, etc.

My argument is essentially that just because there is a stock Imperial Defense Line, that doesn't necessarily mean the Orks are forbidden to customize it to suit their specific army. I don't think that customizing it to allow their infantry to use it as it is intended to be used crosses that line anymore than making a Looted Wagon out of a Rhino and sticking a turret on it, when it doesn't usually have a turret does.

Obviously people disagree, but there you go.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 EVIL INC wrote:
Murrdox , the point I'm saying is that to use the imperial one for an ork army is cheating by the standards of who we are speaking to

No, it isn't. Because, again, there is no Imperial ADL. Just an ADL available to all armies, that has an Imperial design.

 
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Why are so many people Against the OP having a discussion with his gaming club to see what THIER feelings on the matter are?

clively wrote:
"EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)

Seems a few of you have not read this... http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp 
   
Made in us
Captain of the Forlorn Hope





Chicago, IL

I would also like to point out that many people say Aegis incorrectly.

It is pronounced E-jis not a-jis

E like the e sound in Tree, j like the j in Jump, I like the i sound in it, s like the s in hiss

Sorry for Off topic, but my OCD would not let this go.

"Did you notice a sign out in front of my chapel that said "Land Raider Storage"?" -High Chaplain Astorath the Grim Redeemer of the Lost.

I sold my soul to the devil and now the bastard is demanding a refund!

We do not have an attorney-client relationship. I am not your lawyer. The statements I make do not constitute legal advice. Any statements made by me are based upon the limited facts you have presented, and under the premise that you will consult with a local attorney. This is not an attempt to solicit business. This disclaimer is in addition to any disclaimers that this website has made.
 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Murrdox wrote:
I don't think that customizing it to allow their infantry to use it as it is intended to be used crosses that line anymore than making a Looted Wagon out of a Rhino and sticking a turret on it, when it doesn't usually have a turret does..

Except, again, on what basis are you assuming that grots are intended to be able to make use of the ADL?

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 DeathReaper wrote:
 EVIL INC wrote:
There is only the imperial one. Only imperials use the Aquila as a symbol.

No, that is the Aegis defense line , it is not Imperial Aegis Defense Line, it is simply an Aegis defense line (Page 114) (The index also says "Aegis Defence Lines...114")

No mention of Imperial in there at all, so this is available to Tyranids, Orks, Tau Etc...


Actually the fluff text on GW's website specifically refers to it as an Imperial Defense Line. It's not the official title of the model, but it's in there.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 EVIL INC wrote:
Why are so many people Against the OP having a discussion with his gaming club to see what THIER feelings on the matter are?

Nobody is against that. But unless his gaming club is participating in this thread, that discussion is completely irrelevant to this one.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Murrdox wrote:
Actually the fluff text on GW's website specifically refers to it as an Imperial Defense Line. It's not the official title of the model, but it's in there.

That's because fluffwise it's an Imperial ADL. That's why it looks like an Imperial ADL.

Ruleswise, which is what is under discussion here, it is an ADL that is available to all armies. The race of the engineer who designed and built it is completely irrelevant to a rules discussion.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 19:54:20


 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 insaniak wrote:
Murrdox wrote:
I don't think that customizing it to allow their infantry to use it as it is intended to be used crosses that line anymore than making a Looted Wagon out of a Rhino and sticking a turret on it, when it doesn't usually have a turret does..

Except, again, on what basis are you assuming that grots are intended to be able to make use of the ADL?


Because the main purpose of the ADL is a barricade for infantry. A primary component of the infantry of the Ork army is Grots. It thus makes sense that an Ork ADL would be built to accomodate Grots.

Yes, it's not in the rules. Yes, it's a conversion. But it's an Ork conversion that allows Orks to make as much use of the ADL as any other army can, so personally I don't see a problem with it.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Murrdox wrote:
Because the main purpose of the ADL is a barricade for infantry.

So?

A rhino is a transport for Infantry. Terminators are infantry... but can't ride in it.


But it's an Ork conversion that allows Orks to make as much use of the ADL as any other army can,

Orks can already make as much use of the ADL as any other army can. Any other army that has models that are too short to see over it has exactly the same issue the grots do.

 
   
Made in us
Dakka Veteran





 insaniak wrote:

Orks can already make as much use of the ADL as any other army can. Any other army that has models that are too short to see over it has exactly the same issue the grots do.


Come now. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that were really true. Orks and Tyranids and a small handful various kneeling models are the only ones that fall into this category, and the OP wouldn't have started this topic if it hadn't come up.

Orks obviously are at a disadvantage using the ADL compared to other armies, especially when it comes to Grot artillery. This disadvantage is not shares by the vast majority of other GW models. You must at least admit that.
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Murrdox wrote:
Come now. We wouldn't be having this discussion if that were really true.

We're having this discussion because someone questioned whether or not grots could see over an ADL.

Whether or not the ADL is as tactically useful to Orks as every other army is a completely different discussion.


Orks and Tyranids and a small handful various kneeling models are the only ones that fall into this category,...

You forgot Ratlings.


Orks obviously are at a disadvantage using the ADL compared to other armies, especially when it comes to Grot artillery. This disadvantage is not shares by the vast majority of other GW models. You must at least admit that.

The vast majority of other GW models aren't included in the army primarily to serve as a meatshield for the rest of the army... Grots aren't supposed to be hiding behind walls. They're supposed to be running in front of the boyz.

Grot artillery is indeed not able to make full use of the ADL. To be honest, I really don't see that as a big deal. The size of certain models impacts where they should be deployed. That's not exclusive to the ADL... I've been using Grot artillery for quite some time now, and I don't even have an ADL. I don't put the artillery behind a wall that taller models could see over and complain that the table is inherently biased against my army, though. I just put the grots somewhere else.

 
   
Made in us
Drop Trooper with Demo Charge





New Mexico

Orks and Tyranids and a small handful various kneeling models are the only ones that fall into this category,...
You forgot Ratlings.
Truth. My Ratlings can't use the ADL without some serious terrain management. And we're talking about the old 2nd edition models that are literal midgets. Rather than having them missing out on shooting, it's best to just throw them in some low area terrain with good fields of fire. Save the ADL for troops that can actually see over/through it.
   
Made in us
Fixture of Dakka






If making grots taller or ADLs shorter is legal because the rules don't say I can't then welcome to Gravel Genestealers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrGbabRU_dY

My Models: Ork Army: Waaagh 'Az-ard - Chibi Dungeon RPG Models! - My Workblog!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
RULE OF COOL: When converting models, there is only one rule: "The better your model looks, the less people will complain about it."
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
MODELING FOR ADVANTAGE TEST: rigeld2: "Easy test - are you willing to play the model as a stock one? No? MFA." 
   
Made in ca
Regular Dakkanaut




nkelsch wrote:
If making grots taller or ADLs shorter is legal because the rules don't say I can't then welcome to Gravel Genestealers:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrGbabRU_dY


Amazing video!

Also, a demon player friend of mine brought this with him to the showcase in London 2 months ago where he got to have a sit down with Jervis for a 6th edition signing.

He brought along his ADL



Modeled like that, and Jervis said its exactly what GW wanted players to do!

Just chat with your opponent first and everything is gonna be okay!
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Stormbreed
, Prepare for the flames. The ideas and opinions of folk like Jervis don't mean a lot in these"debates" as we have seen.

As I said, this is why you discuss such things with the actualy people you will be playing against.

At no point in time have I EVER said discussing it here is pointless. I am only pointing out that what a bunch of gamers come up with should not be the end all be all answer. That him discussing it here, getting information, views and opionions is a good thing and a good resource that he can use when he does speak with his mates, he will be more educated and able to support his stance.
I just don't feel that this should be his ONLY source of information.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/05 01:10:38


clively wrote:
"EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)

Seems a few of you have not read this... http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

Stormbreed wrote:
Modeled like that, and Jervis said its exactly what GW wanted players to do!

I don't doubt it for a second. GW have a long history of not taking their games anywhere near as seriously as their customers do.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
 EVIL INC wrote:
As I said, this is why you discuss such things with the actualy people you will be playing against.

You seem to have rather missed the point of this forum.

We discuss the rules of the game here so that people can develop a better understanding of (a) how the rules actually work, (b) how people think the rules actually work and (c) how people choose to apply those rules.

That enables peope to go back to those they play with armed with all the relevant information to have that discussion. 'On Dakka, they said 'this... what do you guys think?'


Pointing out in every second post that people need to discuss things with their opponents is off topic, and pointless. Of course they need to discuss rules issues with their opponents. That doesn't invalidate the discussion here. It's the whole point of the discussion here.

This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2013/12/04 23:22:19


 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 EVIL INC wrote:
Prepare for the flames. The ideas and opinions of folk like Jervis don't mean a lot in these"debates" as we have seen.


There's no disagreement with Jervis at all on this. It's a cool model, and I think everyone here approves of making cool models. What we do not approve of is using a non-standard model to gain an in-game advantage from its non-standard size/shape. I would love to see an ork player make a custom ADL that is the exact same size/shape as the standard one, but with an "orky" appearance. But that does not mean I'm going to accept an ADL that is shorter than the standard model to allow grots to see over it, or taller than the standard model to keep vehicles out of LOS.

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 ca
Regular Dakkanaut




 Peregrine wrote:
 EVIL INC wrote:
Prepare for the flames. The ideas and opinions of folk like Jervis don't mean a lot in these"debates" as we have seen.


There's no disagreement with Jervis at all on this. It's a cool model, and I think everyone here approves of making cool models. What we do not approve of is using a non-standard model to gain an in-game advantage from its non-standard size/shape. I would love to see an ork player make a custom ADL that is the exact same size/shape as the standard one, but with an "orky" appearance. But that does not mean I'm going to accept an ADL that is shorter than the standard model to allow grots to see over it, or taller than the standard model to keep vehicles out of LOS.


In a fun game I can't see a reason not to accept simply agreeing to the grots being able to shoot over and be shot at, in a tournament well as I said above the TO's are gonna side on whats fair for both guys. As for some of the guys who actually write the rules/fluff ect, they actually want us to remember that the game is supposed to be a huge fluffy fun experience.

Strict RAW doesn't matter if we're not gonna ever use it, we can figure out RAW easily by reading the book
   
Made in jp
Longtime Dakkanaut



Aizuwakamatsu, Fukushima, Japan

I'm going to disagree with Jervis, I think it looks terrible. But in context I don't see a problem. Most daemons can't shoot, and the ones that can shoot are tall enough to see over the stock Aegis anyway. The only thing that changes here is that you can see Nurglings over it, which is a disadvantage for the Daemon player. I guess it's also far less likely to actually provide cover to a daemon hiding behind it from an elevated shooter, but again that's a disadvantage for the Daemon player without any corresponding advantage. In the context of the Daemon army making the aegis shorter doesn't confer any advantages, so it can't be modelling for advantage.
   
Made in us
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






Yes, we have seen that putting forth reasoned feelings of why a "rule" can be interpreted in different ways. is only good depending upon which person you agree with. I feel that all players should have the right to have and express their opinions. That must not be the case here.

Again, I refer to the only advice or opinion that should matter to the OP, thsat the actual players that he/she will be facing in their local gaming club (along with the local TO). As having this conversation with them is seen as such a bad idea, it looks like they will only get to see the answers of those who are in the majority.
(still on topic and still relevant saying that he should not even ask his mates after discussing it here is a bad idea and to be honest, as much as you might not want him to, he will anyway)

We have discussed to death the fact that the adl is not an ork model, that players want to deny conversions for any reason/for coolness value or not and so on and so forth to the point where we are just going about in circles.

What I notice being ignored are the tactical ways that are being given to get around the problem. That I am flamed for having the temerity to put forth because of personal issues certain people have with me unrelated to the topic or even the forum....
1. Put the gun near one side and let a single grot go out of cover where they can see and fire the gun.
2. place a piece of terrain behind the line (but still 3 inches away) that the grots can stand on and see over while still being partially obscured from many angles.
3. let the handler (don't grot grot squads come with on or independent characters have the ability to join a grot unit? and let THEM fire the gun.
4. Just put the gun somewhere else then directly behind the wall.
5. position the gun so that is has a good field of vision in the direction you want to fire it at and use the wall as protection from other directions to prevent the grots from being fired at from those directions.
6. set the wall up so that instead of being end to end, you have a line with many mini-cover spots along it where the grots will have spots to "shoot around corners"
7. Acknowledge that not being able to target the grots (outside of barrages) is actually an advantage for you and circle it about an object and let them eat beer and preztzels for the game.

Of course, no one wants to talk about the legality or viability of doing those things.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/05 00:54:59


clively wrote:
"EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)

Seems a few of you have not read this... http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp 
   
Made in au
[MOD]
Making Stuff






Under the couch

 EVIL INC wrote:
Again, I refer to the only advice or opinion that should matter to the OP, thsat the actual players that he/she will be facing in their local gaming club (along with the local TO). As having this conversation with them is seen as such a bad idea, it looks like they will only get to see the answers of those who are in the majority.

The bit 4 posts up where I pointed out that repeating this sort of comment was off-topic and pointless? You should probably pay attention to that.

 
   
Made in us
Douglas Bader






 EVIL INC wrote:
I feel that all players should have the right to have and express their opinions. That must not be the case here.


Everyone does have a right. You've been allowed to express your opinion that modifying a model to gain an advantage is not MFA without any censorship. Disagreement with your argument is not censorship.

This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2013/12/05 00:34:46


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
Boom! Leman Russ Commander






I passed the word on to those it applied to. Modeling for coolness without expecting advantages is not MFA. Feel free to go censor Jervis or Blanche or Andy Chambers.
What I notice being ignored are the tactical ways that are being given to get around the problem.
1. Put the gun near one side and let a single grot go out of cover where they can see and fire the gun.
2. place a piece of terrain behind the line (but still 3 inches away) that the grots can stand on and see over while still being partially obscured from many angles.
3. let the handler (don't grot grot squads come with on or independent characters have the ability to join a grot unit? and let THEM fire the gun.
4. Just put the gun somewhere else then directly behind the wall.
5. position the gun so that is has a good field of vision in the direction you want to fire it at and use the wall as protection from other directions to prevent the grots from being fired at from those directions.
6. set the wall up so that instead of being end to end, you have a line with many mini-cover spots along it where the grots will have spots to "shoot around corners"
7. Acknowledge that not being able to target the grots (outside of barrages) is actually an advantage for you and circle it about an object and let them eat beer and preztzels for the game

How would the rules prevent any of these things? Is there anything that might stop a player from trying any of them?

As orks are not really a "shooty army" and the shooters that can cause sizable damage are more than tall enough to see over the imperial guard wall, grots behind the wall don't really want to shoot ov er it or be seen. They are back there to claim objectives whi they can just sit there out of sight for. (don't have my ork codex handy but do they have scout?) if they have scout, an easy linebreaker unit to hide in an opponents back deployment corner out of sight (I've done this many times with penal legion, marbo or al rehem squads). So generally this is not a thing that will occur very often and is fairly easily avoided.

This message was edited 6 times. Last update was at 2013/12/05 03:17:53


clively wrote:
"EVIL INC" - hardly. More like "REASONABLE GOOD GUY INC". (side note: exalted)

Seems a few of you have not read this... http://www.dakkadakka.com/core/forum_rules.jsp 
   
 
Forum Index » 40K You Make Da Call
Go to: