Poll |
 |
|
 |
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. |
|
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 06:18:07
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Regular Dakkanaut
|
Here is my criteria between walkers/MC
1. MC don't have the pilot use controls , they are the controls.Fox example a battle suit the pilot is the control mechanism as apposed to a sentinels where the IG is using controls to control the construct. Dreadnoughts would also fall into this category, the pilot is the control portion as well. Dread knights also fall into this because they just need move as they normally would and the construct mimics it .
2. The construct offers full range of motion.In example battle suits have all the normal joints/fingers that the pilot has normally They have full range of motion.Walkers do not , they have a very basic range in the motions they can perform.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 12:50:16
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Trustworthy Shas'vre
|
fine, make Crisis, Broadsides, Riptides, but oddly NOT the Stormsurge should be walkers. Why? Poison and Force weapons. Is the controlling organism exposed and able to be damaged by Poison or Force Weapons? No to the first three, but yes to the second.
But, if you take that to the logical conclusion:
Powered Armor Space Marines with a helmet, by the same definition are vehicles (AV8?). PASM without helmets, scouts, guard, etc would be infantry.
The dreadknight by this definition? is the PAGK in the babycarrier helmeted? It is a hell of a thing to base vehicle\MC status on, and brings to question whether the choice is truly modeling for advantage. . .
|
'No plan survives contact with the enemy. Who are we?'
'THE ENEMY!!!'
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 13:24:51
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Just to throw a wrench into the works: 1) The Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines have machine-spirits, and the crew that run them aid the machine spirits and hardwired brains, and are arguably hardwired themselves. 2) Mechanicum Ordinatus macro-engines' machine spirits are powerful enough to repair them over time - this means that if left alone long enough a damaged but not-yet-destroyed Macro-Engine will fully 'heal'. Mechanic not required. 3) Ordinatus engines have no chance of exploding from a single lascannon shot. What other criteria are being thrown around again? Because it looks to me like the Ordinatus engines should be MCs. *giggles*
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/03 13:25:29
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 13:46:50
Subject: Re:Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Auspicious Aspiring Champion of Chaos
|
EmpNortonII wrote: Sidstyler wrote:
Also, as I've said before, I would argue that if crisis suits should have vehicle stats then so too should literally all Space Marine infantry that aren't scouts (including centurions), as a crisis suit behaves more like a slightly larger, less-sophisticated suit of power armored infantry with a jet pack (which is actually very well-represented with its stat line, being comparable to a Marine but with an extra wound) than it does a piloted vehicle.
I beg your fething pardon. Less sophisticated? Space Marine power armor doesn't let them see in the dark.
Have you read the fluff on power armor? That stuff comes with every option but a happy ending (and I'm pretty sure that come standard in the Mark IV). Automatically Appended Next Post: kambien wrote:Here is my criteria between walkers/ MC
1. MC don't have the pilot use controls , they are the controls.Fox example a battle suit the pilot is the control mechanism as apposed to a sentinels where the IG is using controls to control the construct. Dreadnoughts would also fall into this category, the pilot is the control portion as well. Dread knights also fall into this because they just need move as they normally would and the construct mimics it .
2. The construct offers full range of motion.In example battle suits have all the normal joints/fingers that the pilot has normally They have full range of motion. Walkers do not , they have a very basic range in the motions they can perform.
1. This is for the most part a good assessment. The only real flaw with the logic is that neither Dreadnaughts nor Imperial Knights use controls. They are wired directly into the pilot's nervous system. You could possibly make an argument for Dreads being MCs, but I don't think you'll find anyone willing to call an IK a GMC with a straight face.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/03 13:59:00
2000 Khorne Bloodbound (Skullfiend Tribe- Aqshy)
1000 Tzeentch Arcanites (Pyrofane Cult - Hysh) in progress
2000 Slaves to Darkness (Ravagers)
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 14:20:01
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Fixture of Dakka
|
Iur_tae_mont wrote:pm713 wrote:Except not all those have pilots. Also why is a Centurion infantry but not a Dreadnought? They are very similar in size.
I could be Wrong with Centurions and Wraithguard since I've never actually seen those models IRL, just in videos, but I assumed they were smaller than a Dread, but larger than a Termie.
But outside of literal Monstrous Creatures( Demons, Bugs), there is no reason anything else should be a Monstrous Creature.
If a Demon Bound to a Robot is a Walker, a Magic Space Elf Golem with a Space elf soul bound to it is a Walker.
They seem pretty similar to me.
That's assuming the Daemon things should be vehicles. Which they really shouldn't.
|
tremere47-fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate, leads to triple riptide spam |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 14:38:11
Subject: Re:Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/03 14:38:24
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 15:41:49
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
RogueSangre
The Cockatrice Malediction
|
Traditio wrote:Abadabadoobaddon wrote:OK, let's split the difference. They can stay vehicles like they are now, except poisoned weapons glance them on a 4+ and when they take enough damage they have to take a Morale/Instability test or run away/lose more hull points. Sound good?
Fluff reasons aside:
That seems like a big nerf, no?
It's Chaos isn't it?
If it bleeds, we can't kill it...
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 16:07:03
Subject: Re:Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
Martel732 wrote:
We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.
Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.
|
Successful trades/sales: tekn0v1king |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 16:09:56
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight
|
So many xenon players crying in this thread lol.
The basic question should be does it have a organic circulation system.
Riptide, no
Stormsurge, no
Daemon walkers, no
Kills Kan, no
They cannot be poisoned, they require a metal body to exist in their base form.
Wraithknight, yes
Tyranids MC, yes
Dreadknight, yes
They can be poisoned, etc. Maybe the Tau should learn a bit from the GK... oh wait they did with the Stormsurge and it's a GMC.
Seriously xenos get over yourselves you act like we took your mother and deported her back to whatever Sept or Craft world they came from. It's alright to break party lines, I promise you won't be kicked from the faction.
|
SHUPPET wrote:
wtf is this buddhist monk ascendant martial dice arts crap lol
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 16:19:43
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Riptides and Dreadknights don't have circulatory systems... unless you count oil and coolant, in which case the Ordinatus Macro-Engine still counts as an MC as well in your definition.
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/03 16:19:52
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 16:26:05
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight
|
I said organic check it.
|
SHUPPET wrote:
wtf is this buddhist monk ascendant martial dice arts crap lol
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 16:39:45
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Decrepit Dakkanaut
|
Organic [adj.] = carbon-based If oil isn't carbon based then I don't know what is. It's predominantly from petroleum hydrocarbons, which are organic. Or, with the other definition of organic: "Made or derived from organic matter." Then the hydrocarbons in motor oil come from (that is to say, are 'derived from') organic matter.
|
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2016/05/03 16:41:01
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 16:42:54
Subject: Re:Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
Xerics wrote:Martel732 wrote:
We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.
Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.
At least I'd be losing to a new model, then.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 16:44:21
Subject: Re:Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Preacher of the Emperor
|
Franarok wrote:
Now tell me the difference between a Riptide and a Soul Grinder. Why is the riptide a MC and the Soul Grinder a vehicle?
Not just that, half of the Soul Grinder is "alive" haha
Or better, the difference between a stormsurge and a tau piranha: bot are not live, bot use electronic systems to work, both have visible pilots.....But one is vehicle and the other is a MC xD. Then why not the tau piranha are flying MC?
It's a question of turning radius, really. A piranha in motion is banking and jinking and not pivoting like a crisis suit does, it moves faster, lacks the same degree of control.
The stormsurge on the other hand is kind of a runaway train on the subject. The crisis suit makes sense as infantry because it's described as sufficiently nimble in fluff, it is nowhere near as lumbering as say, a dreadnought. The broadside is infantry because it's a heavy gunner built on the crisis suit frame with that performance in mind. Then the Riptide rolls in and it's a monstrous creature mostly because it's a giant crisis suit, and the crisis suit isn't a walker- but you can still reasonably argue that it can twist and jump and generally be more nimble than any large walker like the soul grinder.
I'm fine with all of this, because the way GW seems to differentiate walkers to MCs is whether or not the 45 degree fire arc makes sense on that model.
Ghostkeel makes sense since it's a smaller riptide, but the stormsurge is characterized as being unusually immobile for a Tau suit. I could see it being a stationary tank-like vehicle or walker when it puts its tripod down.
SemperMortis wrote:
So the one on the left is an infantry model with a toughness value and a 3+ save. Not to mention 2 guns.
The one on the right is a vehicle model with an armor value and no saves of any kind. Not to mention 1 gun and a CCW.
So please explain to me why one is an infantry model with a toughness value, more guns, good armor save; while the other is a vehicle with an AV and garbage weapon options?
One is a staple unit in a high-tier codex. The other is an extremely niche unit in what is arguably the very worst codex.
Strip everything else out, that's the difference.
Lore wise? One is the product of a species meticulously studying and refining a mobile walker-type weapon with intent to have it behave like a nimble infantry unit. The other is a can with legs because legs is right proppa. One is described in lore as being able to turn around and follow a target trying to outflank it with notable dexterity, the other can be reasonably expected to be able to turn around fast enough to take a thunder hammer to the face rather than the back.
One is also being refined over time from fighting the other, too.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 17:03:54
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Devestating Grey Knight Dreadknight
|
Unit1126PLL wrote:
Organic [adj.] = carbon-based
If oil isn't carbon based then I don't know what is. It's predominantly from petroleum hydrocarbons, which are organic.
Or, with the other definition of organic:
"Made or derived from organic matter."
Then the hydrocarbons in motor oil come from (that is to say, are 'derived from') organic matter.
Lol you are pointless to talk to.
|
SHUPPET wrote:
wtf is this buddhist monk ascendant martial dice arts crap lol
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 17:30:27
Subject: Re:Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
Martel732 wrote: Xerics wrote:Martel732 wrote:
We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.
Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.
At least I'd be losing to a new model, then.
Actually its an old model >.>
|
Successful trades/sales: tekn0v1king |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 17:50:27
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Locked in the Tower of Amareo
|
It's new to me.
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 18:14:48
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
Also if you watch the Dawn of War 3 trailer it has wraithknights in it. The way they move is not machine like AT ALL. It sliced an imperial knight in half with speed that only a creature could perform.
|
Successful trades/sales: tekn0v1king |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 18:17:36
Subject: Re:Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Xerics wrote:Martel732 wrote:
We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.
Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.
Xerics, you are the definition (at least to me) as to why so many people hate the Eldar Faction and hate a lot of the players who play that faction even before getting to know them.
"Ohh I can't take my OP cheese unit? Ok Then I'll take this other OP Cheese unit. What? I can't play that OP cheese unit anymore? alright then I'll bring these other OP cheese units".
Instead of admitting that your entire codex is atrociously broken and OP you instead show complete disdain for the idea that your units need nerfs and when someone brings up the topic of something even remotely close to a nerf for a unit (proposed because we don't get to make changes) you run to its defense.
Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.
That line just about sums up my experience with you.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 18:25:09
Subject: Re:Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
SemperMortis wrote: Xerics wrote:Martel732 wrote:
We can make it 600 pts though I suppose. Sounds about right. Maybe 700.
Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.
Xerics, you are the definition (at least to me) as to why so many people hate the Eldar Faction and hate a lot of the players who play that faction even before getting to know them.
"Ohh I can't take my OP cheese unit? Ok Then I'll take this other OP Cheese unit. What? I can't play that OP cheese unit anymore? alright then I'll bring these other OP cheese units".
Instead of admitting that your entire codex is atrociously broken and OP you instead show complete disdain for the idea that your units need nerfs and when someone brings up the topic of something even remotely close to a nerf for a unit (proposed because we don't get to make changes) you run to its defense.
Lol at that price ill just spend an extra 200 points and bring one of my revenants. They are more fun to play anyways.
That line just about sums up my experience with you.
I play Eldar. The bad choices in my codex are better than some other codex's good choices. It doesn't matter what I take it will be cheese. War walkers with +3" run speed jumpin in and out of BLOS with twin Scatter Lasers. Falcons Deepstriking next to your imperial knight only to unload a bunch of angry fire dragons to melta the  out of it. Vypers with a bunch of heavy weapons. BS5 Dark Reapers and Warp Spiders. Psyker shenanigans. Eldar are full of good stuff. I don't NEED to take the cheesiest army available but its nice to play what I WANT to play and not what YOU tell me I should be playing.
|
Successful trades/sales: tekn0v1king |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 18:27:17
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Worthiest of Warlock Engineers
|
Xerics wrote:Also if you watch the Dawn of War 3 trailer it has wraithknights in it. The way they move is not machine like AT ALL. It sliced an imperial knight in half with speed that only a creature could perform.
So it can move in a fancy way? Ow wow, and no advanced machine ever can do so. The damnable thing should be a walker, not an MC. But oh no, Eldar have to have their fancy gear once again, and how dare we peasants not just bow down and accept our fate.
|
Free from GW's tyranny and the hobby is looking better for it
DR:90-S++G+++M++B++I+Pww205++D++A+++/sWD146R++T(T)D+
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 18:30:04
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
master of ordinance wrote: Xerics wrote:Also if you watch the Dawn of War 3 trailer it has wraithknights in it. The way they move is not machine like AT ALL. It sliced an imperial knight in half with speed that only a creature could perform.
So it can move in a fancy way? Ow wow, and no advanced machine ever can do so. The damnable thing should be a walker, not an MC. But oh no, Eldar have to have their fancy gear once again, and how dare we peasants not just bow down and accept our fate.
Not in the 40K setting does any machine move in that way. Anything that moves like that would have to be a creature or fully automated which, last I checked, the IoM outlawed after the Iron Men nearly destroyed humanity.
|
Successful trades/sales: tekn0v1king |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 18:38:31
Subject: Re:Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Veteran Wolf Guard Squad Leader
|
Yes. Any large non-organic construct / mecha should be a vehicle. Specifically, if it's so big that the occupant sits in a cokpit and/or his limbs don't fit inside the limbs of the machine, then the occupant is clearly piloting something and not wearing a suit of armour. That should be where the rules draw a line. It makes no logical sense that a dreadnought is a vehicle but a riptide isn't. The current categorisation of thse units seems have been done for the sake of unit diversity; it doesn't adhere to logic.
The exception I'd suggest is to leave wraithguard, crisis and broadside suits with infantry statlines because while they technically fit the above criteria, they are relatively small, responsive suits that are fielded in larger numbers - as with bikes, If they were vehicles they would be fragile due to neccessarily very low Hull points. Damage tables would make things a bit messy...though logically, if you can blow a weapon off a dreadnought, there's no reason why you shouldn't be able to do the same to a broadside suit. As always, there's a nice middle ground between playability and strict logic.
|
I let the dogs out |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 19:31:09
Subject: Re:Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Preacher of the Emperor
|
thegreatchimp wrote:Yes. Any large non-organic construct / mecha should be a vehicle. Specifically, if it's so big that the occupant sits in a cokpit and/or his limbs don't fit inside the limbs of the machine, then the occupant is clearly piloting something and not wearing a suit of armour. That should be where the rules draw a line. It makes no logical sense that a dreadnought is a vehicle but a riptide isn't. The current categorisation of thse units seems have been done for the sake of unit diversity; it doesn't adhere to logic.
But the unit designation isn't strictly a case of what the unit is in the fluff, but what category best represents its behaviour, in much the same way that poison rounds work against necrons not because they're actually poison.
A dreadnought and a crisis suit represent different design philosophies, forcing them to occupy the same category implies there's a common denominator in how their performance works which does not exist. A crisis suit is as survivable as it is for reasons other than armour, a dreadnought can not be reasonably expected to turn around fast enough to shoot at a drop pod that landed behind him.
Walker vehicles are awful, and that's a problem. Pushing for the suits to be recategorized because you hate Tau so much they should be relegated to that trash heap is shortsighted and cruel: foisting a pile of bad rules onto the army just because they proved those rules are bad.
Dreadnoughts are awesome, and walker vehicles need a buff. But even if they were buffed to the point where dreadnoughts and killa kanz with their current statline could measure up as well as GW thinks they do, or even if they got buffed up out into the stratosphere, it still wouldn't make sense for crisis suits or riptides to be in that category, they are not walking tanks.
... Except the stormsurge, once again, that sucker is a walking tank
|
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2016/05/03 19:32:31
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 19:34:32
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Imperial Guard Landspeeder Pilot
On moon miranda.
|
How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.
|
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights!
The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts. |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 19:37:37
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Legendary Master of the Chapter
|
Vaktathi wrote:How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.
Same way terminators are described as walking tanks
|
Unit1126PLL wrote: Scott-S6 wrote:And yet another thread is hijacked for Unit to ask for the same advice, receive the same answers and make the same excuses.
Oh my god I'm becoming martel.
Send help!
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 19:43:30
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Longtime Dakkanaut
|
Desubot wrote: Vaktathi wrote:How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.
Same way terminators are described as walking tanks
Except that one is a powered suit of armor that literally fits around the wearer and he physically moves the armor as opposed to a riptide which is piloted. But it doesn't matter because no matter what Tau/Eldar will never admit their units should be Vehicles unless vehicles get a HUGE buff and MC"s get a huge nerf.
|
|
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 19:46:52
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
SemperMortis wrote: Desubot wrote: Vaktathi wrote:How is a Riptide not a walking tank? Its a piloted vehicle with a big gun sporting legs instead of treads, and absolutely should be able to be disabled in the same way as other vehicles.
Same way terminators are described as walking tanks
Except that one is a powered suit of armor that literally fits around the wearer and he physically moves the armor as opposed to a riptide which is piloted. But it doesn't matter because no matter what Tau/Eldar will never admit their units should be Vehicles unless vehicles get a HUGE buff and MC"s get a huge nerf.
Lol who wants their army nerfed? *looks around for any hands up but of course there are none* That's what I thought.
|
Successful trades/sales: tekn0v1king |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 19:46:55
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Powerful Phoenix Lord
|
As an Eldar player, Wraithguard/blades and Wraithlords should not be vehicles - there are no pilots. Wraithknights are a combination pilot and MC and could theoretically be re-classed as a Super Heavy Walker. Dreadknights, which are exactly the same as Penitent Engines should be Walkers, as well as Riptides, Stormsurges, and that other big Tau thing.
|
Greebo had spent an irritating two minutes in that box. Technically, a cat locked in a box may be alive or it may be dead. You never know until you look. In fact, the mere act of opening the box will determine the state of the cat, although in this case there were three determinate states the cat could be in: these being Alive, Dead, and Bloody Furious.
Orks always ride in single file to hide their strength and numbers.
Gozer the Gozerian, Gozer the Destructor, Volguus Zildrohar, Gozer the Traveler, and Lord of the Sebouillia |
|
 |
 |
![[Post New]](/s/i/i.gif) 2016/05/03 19:49:35
Subject: Should these models be Vehicles?
|
 |
Infiltrating Broodlord
|
Careful Happyjew. This thread is full of Tau and Eldar hate. You can try and reason with them all you want but the hate is strong with these ones.
|
Successful trades/sales: tekn0v1king |
|
 |
 |
|