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.

"We have six or seven GT running CA with vastly better spreads across factions than the ITC GTs, depite many of the ranking people participating in both. While it's not rock-solid evidence yet, there is enough data to support his opinion."

Thanks for citing that. Evidently I'm just supposed to take Ishagu's word with no evidence.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Galas wrote:
This sunday I played a small store tournament playing pure CA missions. The final was ironhand vs ironhand with the list with the leviatan winning. The other player was a playef playing his first games in 5 years. His army was actually ironhands, painted as such, he just reentered the hobby and found his army being extremely op.
Nobody gave them a hard time, we are all friends and laugh at it. At this point in time, ironhands and maybe even Ravenguard and IF should be removed when talking about the competitive viability of something. They are so out of touch, specially IH, that we all know the solution is nerfs, not buffin everything to those levels.

And about lethality, how is people deploying? I played agaisnt the winner ironhand with my GK+Custodes list, pure infantry, one dreadnought abd one bike, and he tabled me on turn 5. I played and won a game vs space wolves and ended up atturn 7without anybody tabled. I only hd 3 saggitarum left, but won handly on points.

In the viability of BA, Black templars are worse BA and they are perfectly viable by virtue of being marines. Just not agaisnt the meta marines.

I'm not sure BT are worse than BA. Most BA benefits are T-totally useless in 8th ed. The chapter tactic is still miserable.

Martel, you do a lot of complaining. I have a close friend who has significant success using Blood Angels, and has played against some top players in the UK scene, he's also defeated my Ultramarines, AdMech and Knights lists in the past. Another person I know had good success against some members of the Canadian ETC team last year during their visit to the UK, again using BA.

Perhaps you're just not very good? I've seen what the chapter can do, and there are strong combinations and plays. I saw the list you posted and it wasn't particularly optimised.

I think you need to stop using your anecdotal experience, and I think you have to stop talking about your Blood Angels in every single topic. You've added almost nothing of substance to this discussion in quite a few posts. I would suggest you improve your play and stop getting hung up about a defeat in casual play.

Martel may be the worst player of 40k to regularly post on Dakka, which is quite the achievement.

 Ishagu wrote:
Martel, you do a lot of complaining. I have a close friend who has significant success using Blood Angels, and has played against some top players in the UK scene, he's also defeated my Ultramarines, AdMech and Knights lists in the past. Another person I know had good success against some members of the Canadian ETC team last year during their visit to the UK, again using BA.

Perhaps you're just not very good? I've seen what the chapter can do, and there are strong combinations and plays. I saw the list you posted and it wasn't particularly optimised.

I think you need to stop using your anecdotal experience, and I think you have to stop talking about your Blood Angels in every single topic. You've added almost nothing of substance to this discussion in quite a few posts. I would suggest you improve your play and stop getting hung up about a defeat in casual play.

The way you talk i figured you never lose.

 Corrode wrote:
Martel may be the worst player of 40k to regularly post on Dakka, which is quite the achievement.

My overall record in 40k is well below the wargaming Mendoza Line, but I'm willing to admit that I suck at the game and can differentiate between any issue with the game and an issue with the way I play it.

I can tell you i was quite good in 5th, but then tanked in 6th/7th. Maybe i just dont get 8th. Maybe i mentally checked out after they put in fall back without realizing it.

Dudeface wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Dudeface wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
As I said, at least in ITC I can hide from all but the TFCs. Of course, so can the Tau and the IH. It really pisses me off that GW just couldn't control themselves with marines.

"Dude I had this amazing game at the store last night, we both hid behind some buildings so we didn't get shot, I got loads of points for standing still and so did my opponents, it was awesome just doing nothing while we racked up points" *high fives*

That's better than having a game that lasted under an hour that only one person actually played while the other was boxed up by being unable to move past a line of guys at the front edge of their deploy.
Standing and shooting is still at least 4-6 relevant turns of play with both players actually having a theoretically decisive effect, if not the best play.

So not interacting with your opponent and ticking boxes for 6 turns is a more fun and engaging game? Edit to elaborate: Martel was complaining that he didn't have ITC terrain he could literally hide behind to prevent his opponent interacting with him, not that he wanted to stand and shoot for 6 turns, he literally wanted to hide and not interact.

You can't actually win an ITC mission by not playing the game and ticking boxes. At the very minimum you have to either take the middle or destroy more enemy units than you lose to stay competitive, and probably do both at least a couple of times to win.

You will definitely be interacting with your enemy, and even if the core of your strategy is to largely hide behind structures and shoot with NLoS weapons systems, you have to go about it vary carefully, deliberately, and strategically while predicting and denying the enemy's own path to victory.

More importantly, both players will probably remain in the game, making decisions that are relevant to the outcome of the game, and interacting with each other until at least turn 4 in the most extreme case [which will involve heavy destruction of the enemy force and total board dominance to get there], which is a lot better than the game being effectively over on turn 2 with total collective casualties being a few cultists and interceptors and with the winning player having forgone any intent of retention of position and advantage in the long term secure in the assumption that it was literally impossible for her opponent to win afterwords even with a completely intact army.

Also, ITC missions are largely approachable by all factions. There's some bias, mostly in the secondaries [which, for example, highly benefit fast elite forces like space marines and disadvantage horde forces like guard and tyranids]. But some of the CA's basically come down to being able to be set up in the mid board earlier than the opponent.

Martel732 wrote:


I'm not sure BT are worse than BA. Most BA benefits are T-totally useless in 8th ed. The chapter tactic is still miserable.

People aren't playing BA for their doctrine. By chapter tactic are you refering to +1 W and +1 to Advance and Charge? They are absolutely amazing for their purpose. Its why you see soup lists with Smash Caps, Mephiston, Libby Dread and Death Company. They all heavily benefit and rely on those benefits. You may need to revisit the BA codex including PA update.

Doesn't matter. I reported my experience and opinion pertinent to the thread. It was dismissed. Let's drop BA for now.

 Corrode wrote:
Martel may be the worst player of 40k to regularly post on Dakka, which is quite the achievement.

I take umbridge at that comment! I am REALLY BAD at this game. I chose Custodes because they only really have one phase, none of this Shooting or Psychic stuff for me! I just want to punch things. In any event, I also routinely misquote stats and rules, simply because 40k is a madhouse of rules that invalidate each other and weekly substantial changes.

I also play with land raiders in my Custodes force. Because cheap.

Martel732 wrote:
...Let's drop BA for now.

(HALLELUJAH!)

Maybe the rest of us BA players can have some peace and quiet enjoying our army now.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Also, ITC missions are largely approachable by all factions. There's some bias, mostly in the secondaries [which, for example, highly benefit fast elite forces like space marines and disadvantage horde forces like guard and tyranids]. But some of the CA's basically come down to being able to be set up in the mid board earlier than the opponent.

CA missions are approachable by all factions too. There's nothing wrong with setting up a mission pack with certain parameters in mind that change army building, provided all armies are capable of building the required army. CA missions requiring mobility and board control with a variety of unit types is no different to ITC secondaries effectively removing entire units from the game or emphasising the power of non-LoS shooting. It's not inherently a bad thing for a mission pack to push army design towards a certain set of requirements unless some armies can't meet those requirements and I don't think there's a single army that can't build towards the CA missions, in the same way I don't think the ITC missions render any armies unable to at least attempt to compete.

Slipspace wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Also, ITC missions are largely approachable by all factions. There's some bias, mostly in the secondaries [which, for example, highly benefit fast elite forces like space marines and disadvantage horde forces like guard and tyranids]. But some of the CA's basically come down to being able to be set up in the mid board earlier than the opponent.

CA missions are approachable by all factions too. There's nothing wrong with setting up a mission pack with certain parameters in mind that change army building, provided all armies are capable of building the required army. CA missions requiring mobility and board control with a variety of unit types is no different to ITC secondaries effectively removing entire units from the game or emphasising the power of non-LoS shooting. It's not inherently a bad thing for a mission pack to push army design towards a certain set of requirements unless some armies can't meet those requirements and I don't think there's a single army that can't build towards the CA missions, in the same way I don't think the ITC missions render any armies unable to at least attempt to compete.

Pretty much this, the other point being raised is that CA missions result in:

the game being effectively over on turn 2 with total collective casualties being a few cultists and interceptors and with the winning player having forgone any intent of retention of position and advantage in the long term secure in the assumption that it was literally impossible for her opponent to win afterwords even with a completely intact army.

What scenario is that even possible? As scenery is placed before objectives there's a good chance that you'll be forcing someone to cap objectives in open ground and given that they score at the start of their next battle round, it gives plenty of chance to clear them off those objectives. I've personally not experienced a game that's so decisively swung by turn 2 with minimal losses.

Agreed turn 2 losses usually involve heavy heavy losses.

Slipspace wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

Also, ITC missions are largely approachable by all factions. There's some bias, mostly in the secondaries [which, for example, highly benefit fast elite forces like space marines and disadvantage horde forces like guard and tyranids]. But some of the CA's basically come down to being able to be set up in the mid board earlier than the opponent.

CA missions are approachable by all factions too. There's nothing wrong with setting up a mission pack with certain parameters in mind that change army building, provided all armies are capable of building the required army. CA missions requiring mobility and board control with a variety of unit types is no different to ITC secondaries effectively removing entire units from the game or emphasising the power of non-LoS shooting. It's not inherently a bad thing for a mission pack to push army design towards a certain set of requirements unless some armies can't meet those requirements and I don't think there's a single army that can't build towards the CA missions, in the same way I don't think the ITC missions render any armies unable to at least attempt to compete.

I wasn't trying to say that they encourage tactical mobility and flexibility. Maelstrom does, through it's random mad-dash to ephemeral objectives [which is it's own kettle of gak], but some missions in CA Eternal just reward being able to "cheat out" [not actually cheating, just using a deployment rule that would bypass usual restrictions on placement] units, and the higher the priority the better. Infiltrate > Vanguard > Gate/Jump.

Dudeface wrote:
Pretty much this, the other point being raised is that CA missions result in:

the game being effectively over on turn 2 with total collective casualties being a few cultists and interceptors and with the winning player having forgone any intent of retention of position and advantage in the long term secure in the assumption that it was literally impossible for her opponent to win afterwords even with a completely intact army.

What scenario is that even possible? As scenery is placed before objectives there's a good chance that you'll be forcing someone to cap objectives in open ground and given that they score at the start of their next battle round, it gives plenty of chance to clear them off those objectives. I've personally not experienced a game that's so decisively swung by turn 2 with minimal losses.

This was literally one of my experiences playing Lockdown, I described it a few pages back. The other one was over turn 3.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Agreed turn 2 losses usually involve heavy heavy losses.

I described it a while ago, this was an extreme case, but I zoned him in for 2 turns on lockdown by making T1 charges with interceptors and gated strikes, preventing him from moving past me into the mid-field and on to any objectives.

I imagine that this could be basically pulled off by Space Marines trivially without even needing to make 9" charges. Just walk up infiltrators and form a line across the front edge of their deploy, and there's nothing the enemy can do except have taken the first turn.

Movement occurs before the enemy gets a chance to remove them, so they can't get past them to reach and objective so their total forward movement is basically their 3" consolidate. Turn 2 you can repeat the trick with new units, and accumulate an insurmountable lead.




There are some good missions too, as I said I think Crusade is really good, but one good mission doesn't make a mission pack suitable, while one bad one makes it unsuitable for competitive play. As I said, I would be pretty happy with "Crusade" as the replacement mission pack in it's entirety.



I already expressed what I think a competitive mission packet should be in the thread, and defended my assertions. I don't really have anything else to contribute, because it all comes down to requirements. This is a strategic and tactical wargame that is most importantly played against an opponent to see who is better. Randomness, diversity, and unpredictability in the mission packet are all negative towards those aims. If you think features that "mix it up" are good to "keep people on their toes", we're going to have to disagree, and I don't think those sentiments have any place in a best-of-one competitive strategy game.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

A mission needs several things to be good:
Static: the mission will play the same no matter who plays it or when. If you can play the mission twice and it'll be different each time, that's a problem
Plannable: similar to the above, but you should be able to see and prepare a strategy towards victory from when you build your list to the end.
Counterplayable: players should be forced to engage with their opponent, rather than be an independent race to the top to see who gets highest. Being able to deny through play the enemy their points is as important a part of a game as scoring your own.
Competitive: any point in the game should have the potential to be decisive with good play.
Balanced: assuming players of equal skill, either should have a equal chance of winning independent of faction selection. Exactly what's in your army is important, but whether you're Space Marines or Imperial Guard should still give equal odds.
Sane: Winning the mission should not incentivize what would otherwise be considered bad play and poor decisions. Actions of desperation like sending troops squads on suicide missions to take a point for just the end of your turn and then die might be a valid choice on the back foot and trying to stay close to turn it around, but it shouldn't be the optimal play when you're winning.

ITC is not perfect, but it's a hell of a lot better than some of the CA missions. There's use for the CA missions, since as I also said I've been "playing down" a lot lately with new players and ITC just doesn't work at not-2000 points, and they're reasonably good for teaching the game. I just don't think they're good for competitive play.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I already expressed what I think a competitive mission packet should be in the thread, and defended my assertions. I don't really have anything else to contribute, because it all comes down to requirements. This is a strategic and tactical wargame that is most importantly played against an opponent to see who is better. Randomness, diversity, and unpredictability in the mission packet are all negative towards those aims. If you think features that "mix it up" are good to "keep people on their toes", we're going to have to disagree, and I don't think those sentiments have any place in a best-of-one competitive strategy game.

I'm still not following how randomly determined win conditions within predefined parameters supposedly reduces the strategic or tactical aspect of the game, if anything it would seem to require a broader scope of planning and decision making rather than less. If you can't plan for randomness, how do you deal with dice rolls not going your way?

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I already expressed what I think a competitive mission packet should be in the thread, and defended my assertions. I don't really have anything else to contribute, because it all comes down to requirements. This is a strategic and tactical wargame that is most importantly played against an opponent to see who is better. Randomness, diversity, and unpredictability in the mission packet are all negative towards those aims. If you think features that "mix it up" are good to "keep people on their toes", we're going to have to disagree, and I don't think those sentiments have any place in a best-of-one competitive strategy game.

I'm still not following how randomly determined win conditions within predefined parameters supposedly reduces the strategic or tactical aspect of the game, if anything it would seem to require a broader scope of planning and decision making rather than less. If you can't plan for randomness, how do you deal with dice rolls not going your way?

Because you're playing against your opponent. Things that should be decisive and relevant inputs for your strategic and tactical responses should be the actions you and they take, not the random objective that is removed from play or three random tasks to do this turn.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I already expressed what I think a competitive mission packet should be in the thread, and defended my assertions. I don't really have anything else to contribute, because it all comes down to requirements. This is a strategic and tactical wargame that is most importantly played against an opponent to see who is better. Randomness, diversity, and unpredictability in the mission packet are all negative towards those aims. If you think features that "mix it up" are good to "keep people on their toes", we're going to have to disagree, and I don't think those sentiments have any place in a best-of-one competitive strategy game.

I'm still not following how randomly determined win conditions within predefined parameters supposedly reduces the strategic or tactical aspect of the game, if anything it would seem to require a broader scope of planning and decision making rather than less. If you can't plan for randomness, how do you deal with dice rolls not going your way?

Because you're playing against your opponent. Things that should be decisive and relevant inputs for your strategic and tactical responses should be the actions you and they take, not the random objective that is removed from play or three random tasks to do this turn.

A core mechanic of 40k is dice rolling, pretty much any decision you or your opponent makes, from advancing to combat, is subject to random chance. I don't understand why you only consider planning for that random chance and allocating resources appropriately to only be strategic when it doesn't involve objectives.

Die rolling is already super random until you get to large numbers of dice. Adding even more randomness further degrades player agency imo

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

 nurgle5 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:

I already expressed what I think a competitive mission packet should be in the thread, and defended my assertions. I don't really have anything else to contribute, because it all comes down to requirements. This is a strategic and tactical wargame that is most importantly played against an opponent to see who is better. Randomness, diversity, and unpredictability in the mission packet are all negative towards those aims. If you think features that "mix it up" are good to "keep people on their toes", we're going to have to disagree, and I don't think those sentiments have any place in a best-of-one competitive strategy game.

I'm still not following how randomly determined win conditions within predefined parameters supposedly reduces the strategic or tactical aspect of the game, if anything it would seem to require a broader scope of planning and decision making rather than less. If you can't plan for randomness, how do you deal with dice rolls not going your way?

Because you're playing against your opponent. Things that should be decisive and relevant inputs for your strategic and tactical responses should be the actions you and they take, not the random objective that is removed from play or three random tasks to do this turn.

Assuming we're talking ITC though, you pick your missions, you're rewarded for completing the scoring narrative you've written for your army, not for interacting with your opponent. Likewise you army build to prohibit your opponents objectives. They're strategic decisions and require no tactical involvement, you're controlling them before you even have an opponent. the Maelstrom missions in particular reward ability to make better tactical choices as the strategic are less important at that point.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Because you're playing against your opponent.

If you just pick whatever mission is easiest for you to win, you're minimizing the amount of playing against your opponent you have to do. It's understandable that this of course makes it easier to win and thus is favored, but it's still reducing the amount that you actually have to play against your opponent.

No tournament mission pack encourages as much as ITC to build your list thinking about the secondaries. That is by definition playing agaisnt the tournament pack, not agaisnt your opponent, because you know that you'll always take the same objetives agaisnt the same lists. Theres no counter play between players, both have all of their strategy predefined before even the battle begins. Theres no need to adapt.

And you can see that clearly when people stats defending ITC and citing his virtues. Is always about how you can have everything planned and everything comes down to "your decisions" when in reality battles were about a couple of generals and commanders trying their best to navigate around the uncertainty of an everchanging battlefield, when many times they didn't even knew exactly what they were facing.

By making everything about preplaning and executing a perfect plan from start to finish, ITC makes the game even less tactical and strategic and more of it comes down to mathematics. What list was more optimized pre-tournament to follow the predefined misions.

This thread is a real trip...

First off, if playing the same mission(s) with similar terrain setups is sooo boring, why is it that all the largest sports in the world have codified standards for field/pitch/rink layout, player equipment, score tracking, ect? The ITC is trying to bring that level of professionalism to the 40k tournament scene so of course they're going to use the same methods.

Second, if you're going to bring up data gathered from CA2019 missions; bring the actual data! I'm asking for lists, players, points breakdown by game, the mission played, everything if you can't do that or stop bring up the data. ITC makes finding this information from its tournaments easy so if you want to prove that CA2019 is better we're going to need to see that data that proves it.

Three, The only difference between ITC and CA2019 list tailoring is what these lists are tailored to do. Beyond that you're still literally playing the same game. CA2019 feels fresh right now so it's easy to want to play more of it but long term any system will start to feel samey and people will complain that units that used to be playable in ITC are junk in the new CA mission packs. That's just life in this hobby.

Fourth, and finally, drop the sour grapes. It feels like some of you have been personally attacked by the mere existence of the ITC. We all get it, you'd prefer another system, stop complaining on a message board and actually do something about it like the FLG crew did. Otherwise, you're just blowing a bunch of worthless hot air.

Oh you did it now. No one questions Ishagu.

 Galas wrote:
No tournament mission pack encourages as much as ITC to build your list thinking about the secondaries. That is by definition playing agaisnt the tournament pack, not agaisnt your opponent, because you know that you'll always take the same objetives agaisnt the same lists. Theres no counter play between players, both have all of their strategy predefined before even the battle begins. Theres no need to adapt.

And you can see that clearly when people stats defending ITC and citing his virtues. Is always about how you can have everything planned and everything comes down to "your decisions" when in reality battles were about a couple of generals and commanders trying their best to navigate around the uncertainty of an everchanging battlefield, when many times they didn't even knew exactly what they were facing.

By making everything about preplaning and executing a perfect plan from start to finish, ITC makes the game even less tactical and strategic and more of it comes down to mathematics. What list was more optimized pre-tournament to follow the predefined misions.

Generals, especially modern generals, spend literally trillions of dollars in an effort to NOT to have to navigate an uncertain battlefield. No GOOD general EVER goes into a battle not knowing what they're facing. A squad sergeant under orders or an idiot might, but no one not under duress or not an idiot would charge dick first into an enemy like you're suggesting.

Tactics and strategy in warfare is EXACTLY putting every resource you have into making it come down to mathematics.

Having clearly defined objectives and deploying personnel and materiel specifically suited for securing said objectives sounds like intelligent, modern war strategy.

Your way sounds like hillbilly dipgaks sprinting headfirst into a wood chipper.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Martel732 wrote:
Oh you did it now. No one questions Ishagu.

Careful, he'll make up some more unverifiable statistics about events that may or may not of happened.

With all due respect should someone who admits to not playing since 5th edition and basing all their current views on watching battle reports be accusing other posters of "blowing hot air "?

 Jidmah wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I don't think you know that. I can't find any real data to support that.

We have six or seven GT running CA with vastly better spreads across factions than the ITC GTs, depite many of the ranking people participating in both. While it's not rock-solid evidence yet, there is enough data to support his opinion.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Smirrors wrote:
I had a 3 round tournie this weekend with new ITC. It seems fine. Easier to score bonus and the secondaries feel more balanced. No seize was ok as people felt more settled with their deployment decisions. Overall consensus was positive and the common themes was refinement.

As for people complaining about ITC being boring, for competitive tournaments its not meant to be super interesting. If you are like me and you only play ITC at tournaments say once a month, its fine. Obviously people like to practice for tournies so it only makes sense that you have the repetition outside of tournies makes it feel boring over time. Isnt it the whole point of practicing for ITC tournies?

There are plenty of other times to play casual hammer and CA missions. Over time I am sure some TOs will want to run CA based tournies if the demand is there for it. People should just speak to their local TO rather than complain on the internet.

In reality, most gaming groups either go 100% ITC or 100% CA missions.

So if you have those events we need them so we can get the full packet and roster. Firstly to verify that the spread actually is better, but to also isolate why.

Because there's more factors than the missions that could be affecting outcomes. For example, the michigan GT was won by Slaanesh...because 50% of the overall score was painting.

Gadzilla666 wrote:
With all due respect should someone who admits to not playing since 5th edition and basing all their current views on watching battle reports be accusing other posters of "blowing hot air "?

He might as well post. I play games and get dismissed. So where's the bar to be listened to?

ERJAK wrote:

 Galas wrote:
No tournament mission pack encourages as much as ITC to build your list thinking about the secondaries. That is by definition playing agaisnt the tournament pack, not agaisnt your opponent, because you know that you'll always take the same objetives agaisnt the same lists. Theres no counter play between players, both have all of their strategy predefined before even the battle begins. Theres no need to adapt.

And you can see that clearly when people stats defending ITC and citing his virtues. Is always about how you can have everything planned and everything comes down to "your decisions" when in reality battles were about a couple of generals and commanders trying their best to navigate around the uncertainty of an everchanging battlefield, when many times they didn't even knew exactly what they were facing.

By making everything about preplaning and executing a perfect plan from start to finish, ITC makes the game even less tactical and strategic and more of it comes down to mathematics. What list was more optimized pre-tournament to follow the predefined misions.

Generals, especially modern generals, spend literally trillions of dollars in an effort to NOT to have to navigate an uncertain battlefield. No GOOD general EVER goes into a battle not knowing what they're facing. A squad sergeant under orders or an idiot might, but no one not under duress or not an idiot would charge dick first into an enemy like you're suggesting.

Tactics and strategy in warfare is EXACTLY putting every resource you have into making it come down to mathematics.

Having clearly defined objectives and deploying personnel and materiel specifically suited for securing said objectives sounds like intelligent, modern war strategy.

Your way sounds like hillbilly dipgaks sprinting headfirst into a wood chipper.

No one ever said the 40k universe was a sensible, efficient setting.