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.

38% (BTW I misread the question and voted no earlier) is a lot smaller then it would have been when Knights where first introduced. which suggests to me that after people have PLAYED super heavies they've realized they're not all that great,

I'm going to say yes, as a Guard player I feel that there isn't nearly enough Dakka in this game, and Super Heavies can provide it. Assuming, that is, that everything is tinkered with to make sure that it's integrated.

40K would have been better off if the game hadn't turned into Epic, but at this point putting the genie back into the bottle isn't feasible, or even desirable.

Banning SHV's and Gargantuans isn't the answer, but if they're going to show up, both sides should be ready to tackle their appearance, which would mean both sides agreeing it's OK. If it's a tournament, it should be clearly outlined whether these guys would be legal or not.

It would be no different if one person brought an army that had no antitank and the other brought a bunch of vehicles. I know - I've done it before and didn't realize until the game was underway I had no way of harming the vehicles. That sort of situation just isn't fun to be in.

Looks like I get 65% of my frosting now in a cool pattern.

Edited by insaniak. Please see Dakka's rule #1

But on topic, I do not think that Superheavies should be banned. I will not tell somebody that they should not be able to play with the toys they have spent their hard earned money on. It is not the fault of the player that a bloated ruleset allows them to do bonkers stuff that is allowed. But it is a testament to their take on the game if they abuse it. I find it pretty simple to just say " no thank you" to a game when it is not in the spirit of what I am there to play. But that is my opinion, people approach how they build lists with the type of game they have in mind. If that is not the game you want to play Traditio, than build a second army in your "ideal" version of 40k and invite your buddies over for a casual game of beer and pretzels 40k, where everybody is the same and everybody gets a prize. I would rather take my underdog army and enjoy having to be clever, use tactics and have a basic understanding of list building and how it effects how I play the game.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Looks like I get 65% of my frosting now in a cool pattern.

And apparently I have 65% of my paycheck now too.

And 65% of the Electoral College votes.

Traditio wrote:

What precisely do you propose for casual pickup games?

Has it occurred to you that pick up games are not a consideration for a huge portion of 40K players?

40K has a problem when players have different expectations regarding the power level the game should be played at. This has always been a problem and while there is such variety available in units, unit equipment and list building it will always be a problem. (because the variety of potential threats means that you must carefully include a variety of capability and a failure to do so leaves you extremely weak against certain threats. It is also easy to create an army that is unfocused in its capabilities and therefore lacking in effective capability.)

Removing super heavies won't fix this. The best fix is to play with people who have similar expectations (I.e tournaments, clubs, friends) rather than strangers.

The poor fix is to strip the variety and choice out of the game until most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections. This would remove the only real strength to the 40K ruleset. (variety)

Scott-S6 wrote:Has it occurred to you that pick up games are not a consideration for a huge portion of 40K players?

No. That did not occur to me.

Now that it has occurred to me, I'm not sure that it's true.

Moar polls?

The poor fix is to strip the variety and choice out of the game until most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections.

I fail to see why this is a bad thing.

This would remove the only real strength to the 40K ruleset. (variety)

Actually, quite the opposite obtains under your assumption. If most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections, then greater variety results.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

NH Gunsmith wrote:If that is not the game you want to play Traditio, than build a second army in your "ideal" version of 40k and invite your buddies over for a casual game of beer and pretzels 40k, where everybody is the same and everybody gets a prize

This particular line stuck out for me.

"Everybody gets a prize"?

It seems to me, Gunsmith, that the experience of having played a pleasant game of warhammer, especially in person, with good terrain and well painted armies, in pleasant company, in and of itself, constitutes a prize.

The apparent opposition that you have in your mind ("everybody gets a prize (fething hippy communist scrubs!!!)" vs. "there is one and only one victor and that is me!!!!"), it seems to me, speaks volumes about your presuppositions and approach to the game.

I approach the game as a pleasant way to spend roughly 3 hours of my day.

Traditio wrote:
Moar polls?

Please no.

I fail to see why this is a bad thing.

It's a bad thing because it's removing choices. That guy who bought a Malcador probably didn't do it out of sheer spite and desire to ruin your fun, they did it because they want to use a Malcador. And if you have to tell them "you can't use that" then there's a problem.

Of course you'd have a hard time seeing this problem because the only consistent rule in your balance proposals is "Traditio gets to play exactly what he wants to play, and everyone else has to adapt to that".

If most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections, then greater variety results.

Remember the part where you have to strip out whole categories of units to get that similar power level? You know, like your balance proposal to ban the entire Tau army? There might be some variety within the tiny part of the game that remains after you've banned everything you don't like, but it's going to be pretty disappointing compared to the diversity of the unbalanced game we have now.

I approach the game as a pleasant way to spend roughly 3 hours of my day.

Followed by 6 hours on the forums telling everyone how they're playing the game the wrong way and are all WAAC TFGs who don't know how to have fun.

Peregrine wrote:It's a bad thing because it's removing choices.

Two points:

1. The person in question premised himself as follows: "Making all armies, mostly regardless of unit selection, equally powerful."

The premise had nothing to do with limiting unit selections.

2. Even granted that choices are removed, so what?

I fail to see this as inherently a bad thing, if the choices themselves are bad (in whatever sense of the word).

That guy who bought a Malcador probably didn't do it out of sheer spite and desire to ruin your fun, they did it because they want to use a Malcador. And if you have to tell them "you can't use that" then there's a problem.

Let's see if I remember the quote correctly:

"Take the strongest units in your codex, paint them well, and then make up the fluff as needed."

I wonder what Malcador owner expressed such sentiments.

Remember the part where you have to strip out whole categories of units to get that similar power level? You know, like your balance proposal to ban the entire Tau army? There might be some variety within the tiny part of the game that remains after you've banned everything you don't like, but it's going to be pretty disappointing compared to the diversity of the unbalanced game we have now.

I disagree with the emphasis on the word "some," as expressed. There would actually be much more diversity, in practice, than present now in the competitive meta.

You've essentially admitted this in your refusal to build, e.g., a competitive orks list without FW or superheavies.

"Reasonably well constructed" doesn't actually mean "Take whatever you want" in your use of those terms.

You want to limit army construction even more than I do.

The difference between us, Peregrine, is that I don't resort to sophistic rhetoric to pretend as though I don't.

Traditio wrote:
The premise had nothing to do with limiting unit selections.

Did you even read the bit you quoted?

The poor fix is to strip the variety and choice out of the game until most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections.

2. Even granted that choices are removed, so what?

I fail to see this as inherently a bad thing, if the choices themselves are bad (in whatever sense of the word).

You honestly don't see a problem with "you can't use that model/army/whatever you bought and painted and really want to use, if you do I won't be able to win without changing my own army".

(Of course you don't, because none of your choices will ever be removed under your proposed rules. You see no problem at all with letting everyone else make sacrifices to balance the game.)

Let's see if I remember the quote correctly:

"Take the strongest units in your codex, paint them well, and then make up the fluff as needed."

I wonder what Malcador owner expressed such sentiments.

Aside from the absurdity of taking my quotes out of context like that I'll just leave it at this: someone who just wants to take the strongest units and win isn't going to own a Malcador.

There would actually be much more diversity, in practice, than present now in the competitive meta.

I find this hard to believe, given how many things you want to ban.

You've essentially admitted this in your refusal to build, e.g., a competitive orks list without FW or superheavies.

Please don't misquote me to your advantage. I refused to accept your challenge with a "no FW or superheavies" rule attached, because that is not a rule in 40k. Even if the final army list would not have contained any FW units or superheavies I'm not going to accept the premise that we're playing Traditio-40k and let you rig the challenge in your favor.

(Of course you already know this, because I said it in the other thread when you misquoted me the first time. Please stop being dishonest like this.)

Okay Mr Traditio, how about this, since you like to harp on someone elses choice about the Malcador.

I play Space Marines, and have Only played Space Marines in all of the years I have collected and played. Sometimes I ally a small number of Sisters of Battle for 40k and I'd like to start some mechanicum for 30k but that is beside the point .

I play Marines, and I choose 98% of the time to play CAD only as that's what I find fun.

And for my 40k Blood Ravens I recently bought a Cerberus Tank Destroyer because it looks cool and because the Sicaran Venator doesnt have rules outside of HH games. It is a super heavy with 5-6 hp and It has one job, kill tanks, and it does this relatively well when it doesn't kill itself. But this super heavy supposedly imbalances a game simply because it's a Superheavy?

Do explain the logic behind this, please?

If only there was a game specifically designed for Super Heavies and Formations..

It's sad that GW decided to merge 40K and Apocalypse to generate extra sales of big kits and push formation bundles.
Hopefully with a new broom in charge at GW they'll start a new balanced* skirmish/company level ruleset, leaving Apoco40k as is for those that want it

*I can dream can't I ?

Traditio wrote:

The poor fix is to strip the variety and choice out of the game until most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections.

I fail to see why this is a bad thing.

This would remove the only real strength to the 40K ruleset. (variety)

Actually, quite the opposite obtains under your assumption. If most armies have a similar power level regardless of your selections, then greater variety results.

Apparently you didn't even read what you quoted. The only way to achieve equal power levels regardless of army composition selections is to remove all choices otherwise you'll still get people who don't bring any anti tank weapons complaining that heavy armour is OP, etc.

If we removed, for example, everything that isn't infantry and gave all units fixed wargear then everything can kill everything and balancing the points will be trivial. However 40K has then become just like a whole bunch of other systems but with clunky outdated mechanics.

While the variety remains then no matter how balanced each unit may be there will always be people taking less effective combinations of units and wargear and other people taking more effective combinations.


Regarding pickup games, it's far more common in the US than in other places. In the UK (which is as big a market for 40K as the US remember) it's much more common to play at home or at a club than in store and pre-arranged games are common in stores. I've played one game in store since the release of 2nd edition and that was a pre arranged game against someone from Dakka, so not truly a pickup game.

Pickup games are less than ideal for any game (even for chess people have different ideas about clock use, etc.) but can be really poor for 40K. Why would you not pre-arrange to play with someone that shares your ideas about what constitutes a fun game?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Traditio wrote:

2. Even granted that choices are removed, so what?

I fail to see this as inherently a bad thing, if the choices themselves are bad (in whatever sense of the word).

Here we see again your failure to understand that an army can be more or less than the sum of its parts. (see your "if tactical marines without grav can't kill it then it's OP" argument)

Every choice can be perfectly balanced but you can still make a poor combination of choices. Scatterbikes are extremely points efficient firepower but an all scatbike army can't hurt an all landraider army. Does that mean that scatterbikes are bad or landraiders are OP? No, it means that poor composition choices were made.

There is nothing wrong with having categories of units that require different capabilities to handle but it allows people to build armies with severe weaknesses. There's nothing wrong with having different units provide very different ways of handling a particular target category but it allows armys to be built that are extremely unfocused.

While there is the large amount of choice in army composition it will always be possible to build a poor army no matter how viable each individual choice is.

Nice on the Cerberus.

I am almost done building an Imperial Knight, that I will play in regular games, with zero regrets. It's a cool model, and that's that.

Bartali wrote:
If only there was a game specifically designed for Super Heavies and Formations..

It's sad that GW decided to merge 40K and Apocalypse to generate extra sales of big kits and push formation bundles.
Hopefully with a new broom in charge at GW they'll start a new balanced* skirmish/company level ruleset, leaving Apoco40k as is for those that want it

*I can dream can't I ?

This. This right here. It was perfectly fine to play with Super Heavies, and awesome Formations that gave additional abilities, and so much more that was 40k Apocalypse. Much like there is a time and place for everything and it is called college, it seems to me the time and place for Super Heavies and the like was Apocalypse. GW in their infinite wisdom had to merge what was 40k and Apocalypse together. I honestly think more people would be happier about this (these?) game if there was still that distinction. I don't want to tell anyone that they can't play with their toys, but I felt that there was a game for that and it was Apocalypse. That game seemed to work fine for them, and I could stick with what was just "normal" 40k. If they honestly brought back that separation, I'd be in support of more events being Apocalypse events (they pretty much are now IMO) but as long as there were still some events that were also "normal" 40k. Oh well, I can dream, can't I?

Nope. Keep the big robots and monsters, keep the flyers. The more options available, the more you have to prepare for and the more units that become viable.

Now, if they would balance out the points between those units, it wouldn't be an issue... glad I can just do that myself since I have regular opponents. (Especially when I am adding points to models i personally own)

Superheavies are generally fine, as the core concept is really just "eternal warrior vehicle" which adds a refreshing breath of durability to the game. Gargantuans suffer from the same imbalancing traits as monstrous creatures. Unfortunately, nearly all SHV/GC suffer from the stigma created by undercosted units like the revenant titan and wraithknight; units like the baneblade or imperial knights aren't bad points-wise at all.

 greyknight12 wrote:
Superheavies are generally fine, as the core concept is really just "eternal warrior vehicle" which adds a refreshing breath of durability to the game. Gargantuans suffer from the same imbalancing traits as monstrous creatures. Unfortunately, nearly all SHV/GC suffer from the stigma created by undercosted units like the revenant titan and wraithknight; units like the baneblade or imperial knights aren't bad points-wise at all.

I agree with you completely. SHV and GMC are not a problem in the game, but there are a few outlier shv/gmc (usually gmc) that create a lot of stigma. If you prepare to face them (which you really should be doing anyway) they are in no way an issue. Heck, certain armies handle them fine without prepping for them.

 Evil Lamp 6 wrote:

Bartali wrote:
If only there was a game specifically designed for Super Heavies and Formations..

It's sad that GW decided to merge 40K and Apocalypse to generate extra sales of big kits and push formation bundles.
Hopefully with a new broom in charge at GW they'll start a new balanced* skirmish/company level ruleset, leaving Apoco40k as is for those that want it

*I can dream can't I ?

This. This right here. It was perfectly fine to play with Super Heavies, and awesome Formations that gave additional abilities, and so much more that was 40k Apocalypse. Much like there is a time and place for everything and it is called college, it seems to me the time and place for Super Heavies and the like was Apocalypse. GW in their infinite wisdom had to merge what was 40k and Apocalypse together. I honestly think more people would be happier about this (these?) game if there was still that distinction. I don't want to tell anyone that they can't play with their toys, but I felt that there was a game for that and it was Apocalypse. That game seemed to work fine for them, and I could stick with what was just "normal" 40k. If they honestly brought back that separation, I'd be in support of more events being Apocalypse events (they pretty much are now IMO) but as long as there were still some events that were also "normal" 40k. Oh well, I can dream, can't I?

I always felt apoclypse vs normal 40k felt like an arbitrary differance. you're playing by the same rules after all.

For those that oppose the units on the grounds they are game breaking and over powered, have you seen the nids GMC's?

They are pretty much a joke for their cost.

Voted no, not because of superheavies themselves or their idea but because of the imbalance in a lot of them and the fact that if one is brought by army X, army Y can often have an impossible time taking it out.
Which ultimately isnt fun and imbalances things a lot.

 Ratius wrote:
Voted no, not because of superheavies themselves or their idea but because of the imbalance in a lot of them and the fact that if one is brought by army X, army Y can often have an impossible time taking it out.
Which ultimately isnt fun and imbalances things a lot.

And this is why a binary poll probably wasn't the best option (Not the I'm trying to criticise the OP nor suggesting that we start yet another one of these threads for the sake of a poll < Sorry, Traditio > ). In light of this comment (and the likelihood of at least some others probably feeling the same way), here's what I think would have been a better set of poll options:

-- Yes; They're fine where and how they are.
-- Yes; As long as they get balance.
-- Yes; < Other > [Please Comment]
-- No; They fine how they are but only belong in Apoc.
-- No; They need a balance, but still only belong in Apoc.
-- No; < Other > [Please Comment]

I'm not going to lie: It would be interesting to see the answers to this thread's poll if these were the options. My vote would be for Yes; As long as they get balance (which also sums up my answer to the original question).

I'd have run the poll like this:
- I own big toys, and I play them all the time.
- I own big toys, but I save them for special occasions.
- I own big toys, but they stay on the shelf.
- I don't have any big toys, but I like to play against them.
- I don't have any big toys, but I like them for special occasions.
- I don't have any big toys, and nobody should play them against me.

The bit about "balance" is pointless, as 40k has never been balanced, and will never be. Anybody wishing for 40k to be balanced should feel bad, because that's just not what the game is. Same with wanting "deep" strategic gameplay. It's an arcade game of loud noises and flashing lights.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The bit about "balance" is pointless, as 40k has never been balanced, and will never be.

-- Whether or not it has been balanced in the past depends on how strict you are about defining balance. I honestly can't say as to the history of 40K in terms of balance since I know nothing of and nor have I played anything before 7th Edition.
-- Under the current attitudes and business plans of GW, you're probably right in saying that it never will be, but you can't know for sure. And even if it never is, why can't we hope?
-- Why is the bit about balance pointless? I see no reasoning that makes it pointless.

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Anybody wishing for 40k to be balanced should feel bad, because that's just not what the game is.

No - they should feel good because they not only like this game but want it be improved upon by way of balance. Why should be feel bad about that? And why can't the game be exactly that - balanced?

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Same with wanting "deep" strategic gameplay. It's an arcade game of loud noises and flashing lights.

In the same way that DnD is just rolling dice. If you can't see how a group of people might because immersed in the deep strategic gameplay and/or narrative, then that's your loss, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to do (far from that, in fact).


If all 40K is to you is an unbalanced game with no depth and no potential to ever be balanced or even close to balanced, that's fine (it's also my experience that people with these sorts of views are the sorts of people who end up finding a new hobby rather quickly). But that doesn't mean that other people have share that view, nor does it mean that the pursuit of balance and in-depth gameplay is bad or something to feel bad about.

I am going to say I am fine with them. Example in point, I am working on a R&H IA:13 army centred around a vanilla Baneblade. If I keep my infantry near the Baneblade then they are Fearless, a pro. The Baneblade brings a lot of firepower, another pro. If the Baneblade gets popped, highly likely, I could nuke the majority of my army, definite con. All about the risk and reward chaps and chapettes.

The problem is a lot of SHW, etc., dont have a similar risk reward mechanic.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The bit about "balance" is pointless, as 40k has never been balanced, and will never be.

-- Whether or not it has been balanced in the past depends on how strict you are about defining balance. I honestly can't say as to the history of 40K in terms of balance since I know nothing of and nor have I played anything before 7th Edition.
-- Under the current attitudes and business plans of GW, you're probably right in saying that it never will be, but you can't know for sure. And even if it never is, why can't we hope?
-- Why is the bit about balance pointless? I see no reasoning that makes it pointless.

40k has never been balanced.

You can hope all you want, but as they say, hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. You're just misplacing your energies. I will put my money where the 'proven track record' says how things will be. Gw's track record is pretty obvious.
See above. Balance is all well and good, but it will never happen with 40k, if for no other reason than the sheer scope and variety in what the game encompasses would make such an endeavour pointless (hur hur) and any such systemic changes would have every chance of turning 40k into something no one would recognise. Whether you like it or not, gw's attitude is to essentially leave the balance in the hands of the players - sort it out a,ingest yourselves and cooperate to work out a good game.

Bear in mind, I say this as someone who would very much enjoy seeing 40K balanced. I just recognise the landscape for what it is. Reality, not idealism.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Anybody wishing for 40k to be balanced should feel bad, because that's just not what the game is.

No - they should feel good because they not only like this game but want it be improved upon by way of balance. Why should be feel bad about that? And why can't the game be exactly that - balanced?

See above. It probably could be improved, but it won't happen. Wanting it to happen is misplacing your energy when there are other things you could be doing. if you ask me, being pro active in 'how' you play your game with your mates, and co-operating to build interesting scenarios and match ups goes a lot further.

 IllumiNini wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
Same with wanting "deep" strategic gameplay. It's an arcade game of loud noises and flashing lights.

In the same way that DnD is just rolling dice. If you can't see how a group of people might because immersed in the deep strategic gameplay and/or narrative, then that's your loss, but it doesn't mean that it's impossible to do (far from that, in fact).
If all 40K is to you is an unbalanced game with no depth and no potential to ever be balanced or even close to balanced, that's fine (it's also my experience that people with these sorts of views are the sorts of people who end up finding a new hobby rather quickly). But that doesn't mean that other people have share that view, nor does it mean that the pursuit of balance and in-depth gameplay is bad or something to feel bad about.

He is right though. There is no deep strategic gameplay in 40k. The strategic/tactical side of it is extremely shallow, at best. An arcade game of loud noises and flashing lights sums up 40k quite nicely. If you are immersed in the 'deep strategic gameplay' of 40k, then you have no idea what either deep or strategic actually means.
And hey, don't take that as a criticism because it's not meant as such. It's nothing more than a statement. Arcade games can be great fun. There is nothing at all wrong with them. Thry serve a viable niche. One of the easy things about 40k is how everything essentially plays itself. All you gotta do is apply target priority and move models to charge.

As to the rest, he is still right about 40k being an unbalanced game with no depth which will never be balanced (again, cold hard reality, and going on track record rather than idealism). People certainly don't need to share that view. By all means. Think differently. Pursue balance in 40k. Pursue in depth gameplay. Write whole essays and clog this forum for days with theory, and ideas and your desires. And a year from now, when none of that transpires, and you're still repeating your points to the Internet (and seriously, people have been saying these things since the 90s, and nothing has changed!) what have you actually achieved? and all this time, I've acknowledged the issues, accept them for what they are and am happy to work around them and co operate with my mates to make fun games. Or, as will be the case from the end of June, I will be embracing mk3 warmachine with all the true khadoran patriotism I can muster.

As long as there are deathstars with 2+ rerollable Bull **** there needs to be a way to stop them. Superheavys with their massive weapons are the answer.

 Xerics wrote:
As long as there are deathstars with 2+ rerollable Bull **** there needs to be a way to stop them. Superheavys with their massive weapons are the answer.

Do superheavys actually stop those units, or just victimize the non-death stars. I haven't seen superheavies fare too well vs Wolfstar, personally.

Martel732 wrote:

 Xerics wrote:
As long as there are deathstars with 2+ rerollable Bull **** there needs to be a way to stop them. Superheavys with their massive weapons are the answer.

Do superheavys actually stop those units, or just victimize the non-death stars. I haven't seen superheavies fare too well vs Wolfstar, personally.

My Centurio Ordinatus army crushed it in a recent tournament.

Deadnight wrote:

 IllumiNini wrote:

 JohnHwangDD wrote:
The bit about "balance" is pointless, as 40k has never been balanced, and will never be.

-- Under the current attitudes and business plans of GW, you're probably right in saying that it never will be, but you can't know for sure. And even if it never is, why can't we hope?

40k has never been balanced.

You can hope all you want, but as they say, hope is the first step on the road to disappointment. You're just misplacing your energies. I will put my money where the 'proven track record' says how things will be. Gw's track record is pretty obvious.


As to the rest, he is still right about 40k being an unbalanced game with no depth which will never be balanced (again, cold hard reality, and going on track record rather than idealism). People certainly don't need to share that view. By all means. Think differently. Pursue balance in 40k. Pursue in depth gameplay. Write whole essays and clog this forum for days with theory, and ideas and your desires. And a year from now, when none of that transpires, and you're still repeating your points to the Internet (and seriously, people have been saying these things since the 90s, and nothing has changed!) what have you actually achieved? and all this time, I've acknowledged the issues, accept them for what they are and am happy to work around them and co operate with my mates to make fun games. Or, as will be the case from the end of June, I will be embracing mk3 warmachine with all the true khadoran patriotism I can muster.

Exactly so. While a balanced 40k would be nice, I place more odds in winning the lottery than GW balancing 40k. And I don't even play the lottery but once every few years.

Truth be told, there was a time that I railed against GW for not making a balanced game. Over a decade ago. To no effect. I have since come to accept 40k for what it is. It's not a bad game, and it plays well with beer. Also salty carbs. But it's not chess. And there's nothing wrong with that.

Yesterday, I brought out the my Leviathan, my newly-built Knight and a literal handful of Stormtroopers. As expected, the Leviathan and Knight did the bulk of the killing before a GMC killed the Leviathan. Of the lot, the Stormtroopers scored the most satisfying kill, with their plasma guns finishing off a Flygrant with no overheats.