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 know now how falling back will work in 9th edition and I think it screws over melee armies even more than in 8th ed.
My main gripe with falling back during the entirety of 8th ed was that it is way to easy and not nearly punitive enough. Yes, the unit which is falling back can not shoot or charge, but the unit that is falling back never was the actual issue. The issue is and always has been, that it is rather difficult to get into melee (especially from deepstrike) and even if you make it you will get shot off the board in the following turn in most cases.
9th edition exacerbates this issue even further since you now can escape even when tri pointed. It will cost you 2CP, but in most cases it will be a bargain if you can then shoot an expensive and/or especially dangerous enemy melee unit off the board. Yes you might also take some mortal wounds on 6s when using this break out strat, but lets be honest, those won't make a difference either. You can still be shot at with everything your opponet has.
I just do not understand why they did not include a basic stratagem that allows to hinder a unit from falling back unless your opponent wins a roll off with you. Then you have the possibility to create rules for certain dedicated melee units like for example genestealers, that then get a bonus to that roll off, thus making it harder to fall back from those units. You could also give vehicles like tanks an inherent bonus to the roll off when attempting to fall back, since because of their size and mass, they are inherently more difficult to keep in melee. And make it so that titanic units always succeed when they attempt to fall back, because of their sheer size.
I think this would have made a lot more sense and would have opened op more interesting design possibilities.
I suspect or at least hope the each fisticuffs focussed army will get something akin to the Harleys Twilight Encore strat in due course, yes Cut them Down is fup awful but tuned versions might be good
"AND YET YOU ACT AS IF THERE IS SOME IDEAL ORDER IN THE WORLD, AS IF THERE IS SOME...SOME RIGHTNESS IN THE UNIVERSE BY WHICH IT MAY BE JUDGED."
Honestly, I think what really needs to go is the whole "locked in combat" nonsense that's been squatting on the game like an overweight bear for decades.
It's a terrible rule and one that should have been removed years ago.
Then we can start costing and statting melee units on the assumption that they're doing a risky job and won't be able to make themselves immune to shooting or take units out of the fight without killing them.
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
vipoid wrote: Honestly, I think what really needs to go is the whole "locked in combat" nonsense that's been squatting on the game like an overweight bear for decades.
It's a terrible rule and one that should have been removed years ago.
Then we can start costing and statting melee units on the assumption that they're doing a risky job and won't be able to make themselves immune to shooting or take units out of the fight without killing them.
Locked in combat is fine.
It represents a very real thing: Shooting into pitched melees is dangerous to your own troops. And while multiple armies wouldn't mind, the excuse of "your troops don't want to do it because they don't want it to happen to them" is a decent justification to avoid coming up with (and trying to balance) a method of assigning shots.
This is especially given how melee doesn't come anywhere near the lethality of ranged. Between ranged charge ranges, deployment zones, deepstrike deadzones, screens, restrictions on who can fight, and restrictions on charging multiple units.. Melee has an insane number of hoops to jump through before it can be brought to bear, and then it's easy to deflect it from the desired location / retreat away and blast them. Compare that to shooting units, which can park in one spot and vaporize one (or more) units a turn. Sure they may suffer penalties if they have to reposition to gain sight of something, but there's a big difference between -1 to hit for a turn vs not being able to deal damage because you failed a charge / a 40 point squad of guardsmen screened you.
"Locked in combat" is the only advantage which melee has over shooting in that it cancels the other out. So melee is difficult to bring to bear and less lethal when successful, but once you "in play" melee is rewarded with being safe from shooting, and therefor (ideally) being able to bring its power to bear against units which cannot put up a fight.
With Fall Back + tri point escape, melee doesn't even have that edge going for it. So there's really no reason to use it over shooting with the exception of internal list balance; as some melee units are too efficient to pass up / some armies lack tools via shooting.
At this point, melee needs a lot of love. The simplest solution is to return the dynamic of "safe from shooting" as the reward for successfully executing melee. But if that goes away, let alone whole sale? Melee is going to need to become much more lethal and much more reliable. To the point where getting into melee is not difficult, and melee units can reliably annihilate multiple enemy units per turn.
vipoid wrote: Honestly, I think what really needs to go is the whole "locked in combat" nonsense that's been squatting on the game like an overweight bear for decades.
It's a terrible rule and one that should have been removed years ago.
Then we can start costing and statting melee units on the assumption that they're doing a risky job and won't be able to make themselves immune to shooting or take units out of the fight without killing them.
Locked in combat is fine.
It represents a very real thing: Shooting into pitched melees is dangerous to your own troops. And while multiple armies wouldn't mind, the excuse of "your troops don't want to do it because they don't want it to happen to them" is a decent justification to avoid coming up with (and trying to balance) a method of assigning shots.
This is especially given how melee doesn't come anywhere near the lethality of ranged. Between ranged charge ranges, deployment zones, deepstrike deadzones, screens, restrictions on who can fight, and restrictions on charging multiple units.. Melee has an insane number of hoops to jump through before it can be brought to bear, and then it's easy to deflect it from the desired location / retreat away and blast them. Compare that to shooting units, which can park in one spot and vaporize one (or more) units a turn. Sure they may suffer penalties if they have to reposition to gain sight of something, but there's a big difference between -1 to hit for a turn vs not being able to deal damage because you failed a charge / a 40 point squad of guardsmen screened you.
"Locked in combat" is the only advantage which melee has over shooting in that it cancels the other out. So melee is difficult to bring to bear and less lethal when successful, but once you "in play" melee is rewarded with being safe from shooting, and therefor (ideally) being able to bring its power to bear against units which cannot put up a fight.
With Fall Back + tri point escape, melee doesn't even have that edge going for it. So there's really no reason to use it over shooting with the exception of internal list balance; as some melee units are too efficient to pass up / some armies lack tools via shooting.
At this point, melee needs a lot of love. The simplest solution is to return the dynamic of "safe from shooting" as the reward for successfully executing melee. But if that goes away, let alone whole sale? Melee is going to need to become much more lethal and much more reliable. To the point where getting into melee is not difficult, and melee units can reliably annihilate multiple enemy units per turn.
Well yes, or add more granularity to the system by adding the possibility to inhibit a falling back maneuver like I was proposing. That way you could fix a lot of stuff without redesigning much of the core system.
The part of falling back that is currently stressing me, as a Kabal player, is the interaction with open-topped.
To my (very biased) way of thinking, either the Kabalites count as 'part of the vehicle' ard can therefore shoot together with their boat in close combat, or they don't, in which case they should be able to fire normally if the vehicle falls back.
vipoid wrote: Honestly, I think what really needs to go is the whole "locked in combat" nonsense that's been squatting on the game like an overweight bear for decades.
It's a terrible rule and one that should have been removed years ago.
Then we can start costing and statting melee units on the assumption that they're doing a risky job and won't be able to make themselves immune to shooting or take units out of the fight without killing them.
It represents a very real thing: Shooting into pitched melees is dangerous to your own troops. And while multiple armies wouldn't mind, the excuse of "your troops don't want to do it because they don't want it to happen to them" is a decent justification to avoid coming up with (and trying to balance) a method of assigning shots.
Except that this is an utterly moronic justification. There are multiple armies that literally use their troops as cannon-fodder. Tyranids, for example, use many of their smaller creatures just to make the enemy expend ammunition. The idea that they would be afraid to risk accidentally hitting those same troops with friendly fire is beyond moronic.
And this is to say nothing of those races that basically turn backstabbing into an art form.
Furthermore, have you seen some of the melee weapons and monsters in this game? In many cases, not shooting (and risking your own men) actually translates to allowing those same men to suffer an unimaginably horrific death. Hence, even those rare commanders who actually give a damn about the men under their command, they'll still usually be better off shooting at the threat. Because even if they kill their men in the process, they'd still be doing them a favour.
This is especially given how melee doesn't come anywhere near the lethality of ranged. Between ranged charge ranges, deployment zones, deepstrike deadzones, screens, restrictions on who can fight, and restrictions on charging multiple units.. Melee has an insane number of hoops to jump through before it can be brought to bear, and then it's easy to deflect it from the desired location / retreat away and blast them. Compare that to shooting units, which can park in one spot and vaporize one (or more) units a turn. Sure they may suffer penalties if they have to reposition to gain sight of something, but there's a big difference between -1 to hit for a turn vs not being able to deal damage because you failed a charge / a 40 point squad of guardsmen screened you.
"Locked in combat" is the only advantage which melee has over shooting in that it cancels the other out. So melee is difficult to bring to bear and less lethal when successful, but once you "in play" melee is rewarded with being safe from shooting, and therefor (ideally) being able to bring its power to bear against units which cannot put up a fight.
Have you ever considered that "locked in combat" is one of the main reasons melee is bad in the first place?
Because the ability to get your opponent in a position where he's completely unable to retaliate against whole sections of your army, whilst those same sections can freely cut his army apart, is an insanely powerful ability. Hell, there isn't even a limit to the scale at which this is applied. So we have joys like a single imperial guardsman making an Imperial Knight outright immune to shooting (though naturally said Knight can still shoot just fine, because God forbid a large model actually obeys the rules in a GW game).
This creates a massive problem when it comes to balancing melee units, even for a competent company. If you make them too weak, then we end up with the current situation. But if you make them too strong, then suddenly shooting armies are dead in the water because if anything gets close it magically becomes immune to shooting.
The whole point I was trying to make was that outright removing this godawful rule would actually free up a great deal of design space for melee units, because you're not having to try and balance them with regard to the fact that they could easily be immune to shooting after a couple of turns.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 14:18:32
blood reaper wrote: I will respect human rights and trans people but I will never under any circumstances use the phrase 'folks' or 'ya'll'. I would rather be killed by firing squad.
the_scotsman wrote: Yeah, when i read the small novel that is the Death Guard unit options and think about resolving the attacks from a melee-oriented min size death guard squad, the thing that springs to mind is "Accessible!"
Argive wrote: GW seems to have a crystal ball and just pulls hairbrained ideas out of their backside for the most part.
You're not. If you're worried about your opponent using 'fake' rules, you're having fun the wrong way. This hobby isn't about rules. It's about buying Citadel miniatures.
Please report to your nearest GW store for attitude readjustment. Take your wallet.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Fall Back should be at the end of the shooting phase.
Problem solved (for the most part).
Yep, this. With Fallback the way it is right now, Melee armies are still going to suffer. While GW fixed a lot of stuff that I wanted fixed, they really dropped the ball here.
It represents a very real thing: Shooting into pitched melees is dangerous to your own troops. And while multiple armies wouldn't mind, the excuse of "your troops don't want to do it because they don't want it to happen to them" is a decent justification to avoid coming up with (and trying to balance) a method of assigning shots.
Except that this is an utterly moronic justification. There are multiple armies that literally use their troops as cannon-fodder. Tyranids, for example, use many of their smaller creatures just to make the enemy expend ammunition. The idea that they would be afraid to risk accidentally hitting those same troops with friendly fire is beyond moronic.
<snip>
Spoiler:
And this is to say nothing of those races that basically turn backstabbing into an art form.
Furthermore, have you seen some of the melee weapons and monsters in this game? In many cases, not shooting (and risking your own men) actually translates to allowing those same men to suffer an unimaginably horrific death. Hence, even those rare commanders who actually give a damn about the men under their command, they'll still usually be better off shooting at the threat. Because even if they kill their men in the process, they'd still be doing them a favour.
This is especially given how melee doesn't come anywhere near the lethality of ranged. Between ranged charge ranges, deployment zones, deepstrike deadzones, screens, restrictions on who can fight, and restrictions on charging multiple units.. Melee has an insane number of hoops to jump through before it can be brought to bear, and then it's easy to deflect it from the desired location / retreat away and blast them. Compare that to shooting units, which can park in one spot and vaporize one (or more) units a turn. Sure they may suffer penalties if they have to reposition to gain sight of something, but there's a big difference between -1 to hit for a turn vs not being able to deal damage because you failed a charge / a 40 point squad of guardsmen screened you.
"Locked in combat" is the only advantage which melee has over shooting in that it cancels the other out. So melee is difficult to bring to bear and less lethal when successful, but once you "in play" melee is rewarded with being safe from shooting, and therefor (ideally) being able to bring its power to bear against units which cannot put up a fight.
Have you ever considered that "locked in combat" is one of the main reasons melee is bad in the first place?
Because the ability to get your opponent in a position where he's completely unable to retaliate against whole sections of your army, whilst those same sections can freely cut his army apart, is an insanely powerful ability. Hell, there isn't even a limit to the scale at which this is applied. So we have joys like a single imperial guardsman making an Imperial Knight outright immune to shooting (though naturally said Knight can still shoot just fine, because God forbid a large model actually obeys the rules in a GW game).
This creates a massive problem when it comes to balancing melee units, even for a competent company. If you make them too weak, then we end up with the current situation. But if you make them too strong, then suddenly shooting armies are dead in the water because if anything gets close it magically becomes immune to shooting.
The whole point I was trying to make was that outright removing this godawful rule would actually free up a great deal of design space for melee units, because you're not having to try and balance them with regard to the fact that they could easily be immune to shooting after a couple of turns.
Bullet points because I'm getting ready to go for bed.
#1: I acknowledged that excuse doesn't function for all armies, and that it's short hand to prevent the addition of another system. So good job not picking up on that, I guess.
#2: No, it doesn't create a massive problem.
Shooting is currently ultra-hyper-insanely deadly. It is patently impossible, especially with the round of nerfs coming, to get the same lethality out of melee that you can out of shooting. So while shooting is point-and-delete, melee is the lock-down-death-by-attrition alternative. This gives both aspects of combat unique elements (one's more lethal, the other's slower to kill but offers safety once criteria is met).
This system can be balanced around.
While early 8th did have some outliers, melee could've been largely left unnerfed and remained functional (but still inferior). But that didn't happen. Instead GW knee-jerk dumpstered melee because, after multiple editions of non-viability (outside of superfriends), melee was suddenly a game winning force again. And that couldn't be allowed.
Furthermore, locked in combat is thematically satisfying. Melee combat is an ugly, confusing, brutal affair. Orderly retreats aren't a thing. Large-scale melee combat even less so, as the heaving press of bodies makes it literally impossible for engages parties to escape.
#3: Melee shouldn't be shooting.
40k is not, and has never been, a very granular system. The actual execution of the shooting phase is incredibly simplistic, essentially consisting of check range > target > roll > remove casualties. There's no intricacies such as cross fire, flanking shots, or anything which can add granularity to the system and reward positioning.
Melee is the only thing which rewards positioning in any real sense, and even that it doesn't do well. But the combination of lock-down and positioning-important gives melee its identity. If you remove the lock-down component, one of two things happens:
A: You rework the entire system from the ground up, making all forms of combat more involved, granular, and rewarding.
B: Melee becomes short range shooting. Where swords are guns that you just have to get closer to use, but once there function exactly the same as that 48" lascannon, or the basilisk hiding out of LOS off in the corner.
Call me a cynic, but I'd confident GW will go with option B long before option A. So given that melee can absolutely work under the rules system we have when not intentionally knee-capped, I'd vastly prefer if swords weren't changed into less satisfying bolters.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Fall Back should be at the end of the shooting phase.
Problem solved (for the most part).
Yep, this. With Fallback the way it is right now, Melee armies are still going to suffer. While GW fixed a lot of stuff that I wanted fixed, they really dropped the ball here.
It really should've been at the end of shooting. Just not anywhere near the movement phase.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Fall Back should be at the end of the shooting phase.
Problem solved (for the most part).
This is maybe worse for the shooting army. If you fallback at the end of shooting there really isn't anything else you're doing. Then it's your opponent's turn and they get a free charge again.
It certainly helps melee, but makes fallback almost a non-choice.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Fall Back should be at the end of the shooting phase.
Problem solved (for the most part).
This is maybe worse for the shooting army. If you fallback at the end of shooting there really isn't anything else you're doing. Then it's your opponent's turn and they get a free charge again.
It certainly helps melee, but makes fallback almost a non-choice.
Counter charge Daed. This would encourage using counter charge units. More tactics. Always good in my book. More variety in units as well. Got to keep a guard dog around.
The counter to melee shouldn't be "back up 1" then your whole army shoots them while they stand there helplessly." Any game where that is the counter to melee has done something fundamentally wrong.
Ideally, falling back should be at the end of the shooting phase, and the solution to melee making it to your lines should be your own melee counter-charging. However, if they are committed to a game design that embraces full gun lines, I think the better approach to what we have now would be not to allow falling back period unless you have the fly keyword or a special rule that allows you to do so, but in return, allow shooting into melee - with the caveat that any unit shooting into melee gets -1 to hit (possibly that stacks on top of any other minuses), and for any hits, you roll a dice and on a 4+ it hits your unit, not theirs.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2020/07/03 17:06:09
Kanluwen wrote: And on the opposite end of the spectrum, melee shouldn't be able to expect to stand out in the open after they charged someone and not get punished.
Sure, unless by "stand out in the open" you mean actively "engaged in combat with another unit." Because that really isn't standing out in the open.
Of course, this isn't a situation that actually ever comes up. If you are standing out in the open after charging something and wiping it, you do get punished. Always have in every edition of the game.
I don’t see why they didn’t make it like a reaction, like Overwatch. When a unit falls back, the unit(s) it was engaged with can immediately make a charge roll. If they roll high enough, they catch them and remain in combat (and count as having charged).
Now that Overwatch is a Stratagem they could have done the same with this, plus give it to some dedicated melee units for free like T’au get free Overwatch.
Yeah, that's another option that they didn't take, because they really seem committed to making gunlines with zero combat ability viable via just calmly stepping backwards out of combat while the Khorne Berserkers that were chopping you up are rooted to the floor unable to move.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2020/07/03 18:02:21
Kanluwen wrote: And on the opposite end of the spectrum, melee shouldn't be able to expect to stand out in the open after they charged someone and not get punished.
Sure, unless by "stand out in the open" you mean actively "engaged in combat with another unit." Because that really isn't standing out in the open.
Of course, this isn't a situation that actually ever comes up. If you are standing out in the open after charging something and wiping it, you do get punished. Always have in every edition of the game.
here's a helpful hint then:
Don't charge the units out in the open first. Use shooting units(and you literally cannot say you do not have them. Even the fricking Daemons of Khorne have a cannon!) to open up a breach.
actually all i would do to fix the fall back issue is make it so that if a unit falls back, then the unit they fell back from can now consolidate 3", possibly into the engagement range of another unit.
This means if they want to shoot your melee unit they better not have more than 1 or 2 units up close (to prevent easy charges into the unit they fixing to shoot) and/or gives you a chance to move into some cover.
JOIN MY CRUSADE and gain 4000 RT points!
http://www.eternalcrusade.com/account/sign-up/?ref_code=EC-PLCIKYCABW8PG
Kanluwen wrote: And on the opposite end of the spectrum, melee shouldn't be able to expect to stand out in the open after they charged someone and not get punished.
Sure, unless by "stand out in the open" you mean actively "engaged in combat with another unit." Because that really isn't standing out in the open.
Of course, this isn't a situation that actually ever comes up. If you are standing out in the open after charging something and wiping it, you do get punished. Always have in every edition of the game.
here's a helpful hint then:
Don't charge the units out in the open first. Use shooting units(and you literally cannot say you do not have them. Even the fricking Daemons of Khorne have a cannon!) to open up a breach.
I have trouble understanding what you are trying to say here. How does "opening up a breach" help if whatever you charge can simply take a 1" step backwards and then the rest of their army can shoot at you?
Counter charge Daed. This would encourage using counter charge units. More tactics. Always good in my book. More variety in units as well. Got to keep a guard dog around.
Yea, but not everyone has those (T'au) or might not have effective ones. And if you're counter-charging then falling back doesn't seem useful anyway.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Fall Back should be at the end of the shooting phase.
Problem solved (for the most part).
I'm struggling to think what the point of such a mechanic would be in that case, with the sole exception I can think of being if you have a counterassault unit that for whatever reason otherwise wouldn't be able to make a charge with your own dudes in the way.
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.
To save the unit that's engaged from a savage chopping?
I'm for anything that encourages armies to need both elements to compete. A full gunline or nothing but screaming melee hordes is boring.
Far more interesting to need some of each. I was hoping the terrain rules would require close range gunnery/melee to clear but it seems to be half measures easily removed by excessive rerolls amidst the gunline
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
Eldarain wrote: To save the unit that's engaged from a savage chopping?
But then they get charged again?
I'm for anything that encourages armies to need both elements to compete. A full gunline or nothing but screaming melee hordes is boring.
Far more interesting to need some of each. I was hoping the terrain rules would require close range gunnery/melee to clear but it seems to be half measures easily removed by excessive rerolls amidst the gunline
Yes, I agree, but not all armies are created equal in this regard.
Eldarain wrote: To save the unit that's engaged from a savage chopping?
But then they get charged again?
I'm for anything that encourages armies to need both elements to compete. A full gunline or nothing but screaming melee hordes is boring.
Far more interesting to need some of each. I was hoping the terrain rules would require close range gunnery/melee to clear but it seems to be half measures easily removed by excessive rerolls amidst the gunline
Yes, I agree, but not all armies are created equal in this regard.
Ideally you would be sending in your melee specialist/tough tarpit to hold them up if the unit falling back isn't suited to fight the enemy. As you still have a charge/fight phase before the enemy turn.
I agree armies aren't created equal in this way but it would be an excellent avenue to expand both those who are excessively shooty or choppy instead of adding another wave of Marine forced obsolescence.
BlaxicanX wrote: A young business man named Tom Kirby, who was a pupil of mine until he turned greedy, helped the capitalists hunt down and destroy the wargamers. He betrayed and murdered Games Workshop.
H.B.M.C. wrote: Fall Back should be at the end of the shooting phase.
Problem solved (for the most part).
I'm struggling to think what the point of such a mechanic would be in that case, with the sole exception I can think of being if you have a counterassault unit that for whatever reason otherwise wouldn't be able to make a charge with your own dudes in the way.
This response - a very common one - shows how far GW has lost the plot. The point of falling back should be to save your unit from dying, not to open up the unit that charged you to being shot. "Alright lads, we need to take a few steps backward while the people trying to kill us just stand there, so our friends can shoot them! Retreat!" said nobody, ever. You retreat to save yourself. That GW has actually created a stratagem that literally lets you destroy your own unit for 2CP (if you can't get away safely) simply in order to open up the unit it was engaged with to shooting shows how mental this paradigm has become.
That we are all so used to the idea that the only point of falling back is to make it so you can shoot the thing you were in combat with shows how fundamentally broken the rules are. It shouldn't be possible to simply step backwards while the unit you're engaged with stands there. Why is the horde of orks chopping you up magically rooted to the ground when you step backwards? I get that it's a game, but this takes absurdity to a ridiculous level, and results in terrible game design where everything is based on single-turn lethality.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2020/07/03 19:20:06
Counter charge Daed. This would encourage using counter charge units. More tactics. Always good in my book. More variety in units as well. Got to keep a guard dog around.
Yea, but not everyone has those (T'au) or might not have effective ones. And if you're counter-charging then falling back doesn't seem useful anyway.
That's one of the reasons gw needs to start paying more attention to other factions. Remember Tau auxiliaries? Maybe they should do something to bring Kroot back. Of course, if Tau have allowed themselves to be successfully charged something has gone wrong, but they should have some kind of way to deal with it besides the ridiculous way fallback currently works.
4000+
6000+ Order. Unity. Obedience.
Thousand Sons 4000+
