|
PeterWeller posted:
Concocting elaborate scenarios to try and justify the sense of poorly thought out rules is stupid and backwards. It's much better if the writers take care to write rules that make sense from the get go and don't require the players to rationalise them. I think it is a great thing that GW is making this a priority. It really has nothing to do with imagination. The game just isn't fun when the rules seem arbitrary. In an extreme example, I could flip a single coin and imagine a great, detailed story about how the crimson fists beat the orks but it would be pretty poo poo compared to playing out the scenario in a detailed simulation with rules and guidelines that make sense. Cataphract fucked around with this message at 17:54 on Jul 15, 2012 |
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 17:51
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
Here's a question for folks who have played Warhammer Fantasy Battle: When new army books drop with lores or spells or what have you: are they spells you can drop X amount of points and take? Or are they new d6 monkey cheese tables to roll on?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 18:06
|
|
|
Phyresis posted:Venoms are the Dark Eldar's main source of poison. It's more efficient to spam a bunch of Wracks in Venoms than to lock up a minimum of 150 points into a fragile unit that can't kill anything. Especially now that Kill Points are almost meaningless as a consideration/drawback to MSU. Kabalite Warriors suck. PeterWeller posted:First of all, kabalite warriors emphatically do not suck. They're the bread and butter of the DE army, and they're probably the best troops choice in the codex barring a baron led squad of hellions. Wracks in venoms are a useful adjunct to them, but if all you do is spam that combo, you'll find yourself without any scoring units rather quickly. You say splinter racks will probably not justify their points cost, but they're only 5 points. Anyway, being able to move and fire at full range and being able to take shots if their transport has moved more than 6" are both very useful improvements that make kabalites even more flexible than they were in 5th. Seems like you guys are advocating the first two strategies from here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/DE_Listbuilding_Strategy_%28by_Ketara%29 quote:The first is the traditional Kabal list. Maximum firepower, minimal combat. So squads of 5 warriors with a blaster in a venom, quadruple blaster/double lance wielding Trueborn, triple Ravager, and Scourges/Hellions. All infantry are mounted, and the army darts around the field relying on staying out of combat as a general rule of thumb, and using superior firepower and mobility to take the day. Since I can only play a max of 2 games per week usually, I'm not really able to try Raider spam one battle and Venom spam the next (plus, I only have 1 Venom). Plus it gives me way too much time to fret over the list for my next game. Since we play only at my house so far I'm going to set up the full 4x6' table this week to really make use of my movement :P Unfortunately no one seems to recommend Reavers (even with the 4+ Turbo Boost save with Jink and Skilled Rider), and I've got 12 of the damned things.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Snollygoster posted:Here's a question for folks who have played Warhammer Fantasy Battle: You either choose the book specific school, or you can (assuming you have the option) choose one of the generic ones, then you roll in pretty much the way it's set up in 40k now. Unless it's bound to a magic item, or your wizard somehow knows all the spells in a lore, you have to throw a d6. Part of the thought that writing your lists requires is working out which school would be best for each wizard. I don't think it's monkey cheese at all. The old system of just buying spells is loving dull, the Fantasy system is far superior. You might get the awesome spell, or you might get one that's just okay, or you might get one you hate, for whatever reason, in which case you switch to the default spell. Lovely Joe Stalin fucked around with this message at 18:18 on Jul 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 18:11
|
|
|
Cataphract posted:Concocting elaborate scenarios to try and justify the sense of poorly thought out rules is stupid and backwards. It's much better if the writers take care to write rules that make sense from the get go and don't require the players to rationalise them. I think it is a great thing that GW is making this a priority. I think the goal of 40k is pretty clearly to have a cinematic story about a battle unfold. In that sense, having rules that "make sense" would be good design. I don't think that in general, a game needs rules that "make sense" in order to be fun. Rules should be there to help players meet a goal (in this case, to have some chaotic combat going down on the tabletop) Having just read the rulebook, I am not sure if everything does build toward having epic exciting battles, but it does seem that way. It's hard to tell how it goes down in practice though.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 18:13
|
|
|
kannonfodder posted:What are you talking about? This game is by far the most realistic table top game out there. Hell the military should be using it as a combat sim. Battlescribe. http://www.battlescribe.net/ -- it doesn't come with data for Warhammer 40k, but you can check this repository for it: http://www.randomhit.org/battlescribe_data/index.xml
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 18:16
|
|
|
Cataphract posted:this is a stupid comment... If all it takes to kill an oponent is scratching your opponent's skin, swords are easier for you. Ie: you are better at swords. Once you buy into dis/associative arguments, you stop applying mechanics in creative ways because they are rigidly defined.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 18:33
|
|
|
If you can't land a scratch anyway, whether the blade is wooden, poisoned, or a lightsaber is irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 18:39
|
|
|
It's basically letting you score ringers. If you need to loop a horseshoe around a peg but I only need to hit it, I am effectively better at horseshoes. It's the difference between being open minded about implementing mechanics and being the poo poo lord who screams about his verisimilitude on the WotC boards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 18:53
|
|
|
Miles O'Brian posted:This is a really good read and makes me excited for the future. Its amazing how all it takes is a little communication and transparency and suddenly you sort of like Mat Ward after all. I've been defending Matt Ward before it was cool to defend him!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:05
|
|
|
Verdugo posted:Battlescribe. http://www.battlescribe.net/ -- it doesn't come with data for Warhammer 40k, but you can check this repository for it: http://www.randomhit.org/battlescribe_data/index.xml How...how do you use the repository? 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:10
|
|
|
Cataphract posted:Concocting elaborate scenarios to try and justify the sense of poorly thought out rules is stupid and backwards. It's much better if the writers take care to write rules that make sense from the get go and don't require the players to rationalise them. I think it is a great thing that GW is making this a priority. If you think I concocted an elaborate scenario there, your imagination has failed you. Moths and I provided very simple explanations as to why wielding a poisoned blade could make it easier for you to score a telling blow against your opponent. Now let's look at it from the other angle because you seem to think that the current poison rule makes sense. Poison means I always wound on a fixed number no matter your toughness, so I wound on a 4+ (or whatever) whether you're a guardsman or marine. How does that make sense? Shouldn't the tougher, canonically poison resistant super soldier be harder to wound with poison? "Oh, but you're using a more virulent strain of poison on the marine," you might say. But then why aren't I using that strain of poison on the guardsman too? Cue you concocting an elaborate scenario to explain why I don't. The current rules make more sense to you because you are used to them. You've already internalized their way of abstracting the effects of carrying a poisoned blade. krushgroove posted:Seems like you guys are advocating the first two strategies from here: http://www.dakkadakka.com/wiki/en/DE_Listbuilding_Strategy_%28by_Ketara%29 Consider this: 6E has made shooting stronger and CC weaker, so the shooting focused army will probably perform better. No one seems to recommend reavers because they were really outshined by scourges, hellions, and beast packs. The changes to bikes in 6E gave them some decent buffs, so they now might be worth taking. I haven't used them yet in the new edition, so I can't say for sure.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
bhsman posted:How...how do you use the repository? You just add that url under data repositories in the program.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:16
|
|
|
moths posted:If all it takes to kill an oponent is scratching your opponent's skin, swords are easier for you. Ie: you are better at swords. It makes for a more consistent game if all poisoned weapons use the poisoned rules. If the poison is so strong it can kill with a scratch, it's poisoned 2+. If it's a less potent poison it's poison 4+. I'm completely with GW on that one. If captain Bungo has a sword that's a power weapon and captain Dingus has a sword that gives him Feel no Pain because he's so good at parrying with it, that starts to get a little confusing. There's a little of this with invulnerable saves being written off as dodging (Ragnar and Wyches come to mind) but for the most part I really don't like the inconsistency.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:25
|
|
|
I meant to say, in another triumph for GW sales department, the Necron jetbike things are really really cool little models in person. I really didn't like them in WD and online, but yeah, in person they are very nice. Same with the Stormraven, to a lesser degree, it is nowhere near as silly when you see it on a table.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:34
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:No one seems to recommend reavers because they were really outshined by scourges, hellions, and beast packs. The changes to bikes in 6E gave them some decent buffs, so they now might be worth taking. I haven't used them yet in the new edition, so I can't say for sure. Reavers are good. Once I stopped being a retard and figured out that you get a 48" move with them it's really, really easy to get them into dangerous positions on turn 1 and force your opponent to start reacting RIGHT loving NOW to them. They're great distraction units and for pulling people out of position and 2 heat lances on 6 guys is decent anti-tank.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:39
|
|
|
This is kind of a bad example because GW has used poison in a number of different ways in various games. Key wording abilities was probably one of the best moves they made. If poisoned weapons gave you extra movement or infiltration, that would just be bad rules because of the gap between what it's representing and what it actually does. I remember Space Wolves (I think) having a version of a rule that contradicted everybody else's version of the same rule. I'm probably over reacting to the word choice since it's the current vogue buzzword for "rule I dislike". They have used wag-the-dog dissociated /abstracted mechanics in the past to great effect. IG had a medal that increased your stat line, reasoning that if you didn't have those stats already you wouldn't have earned the medal. Bring dis/associated into the conversation and you lose a lot of creative space and get very little in return.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
SRM posted:It makes for a more consistent game if all poisoned weapons use the poisoned rules. If the poison is so strong it can kill with a scratch, it's poisoned 2+. If it's a less potent poison it's poison 4+. I'm completely with GW on that one. If captain Bungo has a sword that's a power weapon and captain Dingus has a sword that gives him Feel no Pain because he's so good at parrying with it, that starts to get a little confusing. There's a little of this with invulnerable saves being written off as dodging (Ragnar and Wyches come to mind) but for the most part I really don't like the inconsistency. Consistency is besides the point. Clearly if we were advocating changing poison to a WS bonus, we would be advocating changing all poison to use those rules. The point is that in a game like 40K (or really any game), you're going to have to abstract things, and because you are abstracting things, at some point the logic behind that abstraction will get strained. That's fine as long as the abstractions remain fun and balanced. Corrode posted:Reavers are good. Once I stopped being a retard and figured out that you get a 48" move with them it's really, really easy to get them into dangerous positions on turn 1 and force your opponent to start reacting RIGHT loving NOW to them. They're great distraction units and for pulling people out of position and 2 heat lances on 6 guys is decent anti-tank. Cool! I intend on giving them a shot, but I haven't yet played a game of 6E with my DE (I've been rocking my regular E). E: moths posted:I'm probably over reacting to the word choice since it's the current vogue buzzword for "rule I dislike". They have used wag-the-dog dissociated /abstracted mechanics in the past to great effect. IG had a medal that increased your stat line, reasoning that if you didn't have those stats already you wouldn't have earned the medal. Bring dis/associated into the conversation and you lose a lot of creative space and get very little in return. Yeah, I probably wouldn't be making such a big deal out of it if it wasn't for the fact that dis/associated was invented as a way to explain why wizards should rule and fighters should drool or it isn't "real" D&D. PeterWeller fucked around with this message at 19:46 on Jul 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:43
|
|
|
moths posted:It's the difference between being open minded about implementing mechanics and being the poo poo lord who screams about his verisimilitude on the WotC boards. I don't play any other "traditional" games besides 40k so I have absolutely no idea of the history behind the associative/disassociative thing but the fact that you do seems to be clouding your judgement a bit. Everything involving dice rolling is an abstraction of some sort so obviously you need to have an imagination for it to make sense but the way I see it the associative/disassociative thing is just asking "Is this intuitive?" If everything is an abstraction then you can justify literally any rule and then say that you've got to imagine the rest. They're just asking if what the rule does obviously makes sense without having to sit there and think about it for awhile so you can produce a justification. The poisoned dagger example absolutely makes sense. If you coat a dagger in poison and give it to a dude and then give the same dude a second dagger that is unpoisoned but otherwise identical which one is he going to have an easier time hitting his enemy with? Neither, they're the same dagger. When he does manage to hit someone with it which one is going to be more likely to cause a significant injury? The poisoned one obviously. Something can be both interesting/fun and intuitive at the same time. Saying this dagger gives +1 Weapon Skill(ie makes the wielder better at fighting) because of poison is stupid and lazy writing. Say it's extremely light and ergonomic or it's possessed by a powerful daemon that takes control of the wielder while in combat or it jacks into the wielder's nervous system and acts as if it's an extension of his arm. Nobody goes "Oh poo poo this motherfucker is trying to stab me with a dagger with a comically obvious poison! Better back off while fighting him! I would be more aggressive if he were only trying to end my life with a regular dagger!" That's just you trying to justify a rule made by a lovely writer. moths posted:It's basically letting you score ringers. If you need to loop a horseshoe around a peg but I only need to hit it, I am effectively better at horseshoes. No that just means you still suck just as bad at horseshoes but your magic horseshoes still work when you do manage to hit the pole, no matter how badly. my kinda ape fucked around with this message at 19:52 on Jul 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:46
|
|
|
code:
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:49
|
|
|
ghetto wormhole posted:The poisoned dagger example absolutely makes sense. If you coat a dagger in poison and give it to a dude and then give the same dude a second dagger that is unpoisoned but otherwise identical which one is going to have an easier time hitting his enemy with? Neither, they're the same dagger. When he does manage to hit someone with it which one is going to be more likely to cause a significant injury? The poisoned one obviously. Actually, if you give a guy two daggers, he's going to have a harder time hitting with both because fighting with two weapons is way, way loving harder than 40K makes it out to be. We ignore this obvious break with realism because it makes for a better game. And your example is doubly dumb because 40K assumes all hits he lands are with the better of the two weapons. What about the SM captain with a bolt pistol and power sword? Why is the pistol letting him make extra attacks with the sword? quote:Something can be both interesting/fun and intuitive at the same time. Saying this dagger gives +1 Weapon Skill(ie makes the wielder better at fighting) because of poison is stupid and lazy writing. Say it's extremely light and ergonomic or it's possessed by a powerful daemon that takes control of the wielder while in combat or it jacks into the wielder's nervous system and acts as if it's an extension of his arm. Nobody goes "Oh poo poo this motherfucker is trying to stab me with a dagger with a comically obvious poison! Better back off while fighting him! I would be more aggressive if he were only trying to end my life with a regular dagger!" That's just you trying to justify a rule made by a lovely writer. Again, your imagination is totally failing you. It's not stupid and lazy, it's just a different way of abstracting things. And you loving bet I'd be more wary of a dagger covered in poison than a regular dagger. I might be willing to take a few cuts on the arm from the regular dagger if it will let me get in a good hit because being stabbed in the arm by a dagger isn't generally life-threatening, but getting space poison in an open wound definitely is.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 19:53
|
|
|
Corrode posted:Reavers are good. Once I stopped being a retard and figured out that you get a 48" move with them it's really, really easy to get them into dangerous positions on turn 1 and force your opponent to start reacting RIGHT loving NOW to them. They're great distraction units and for pulling people out of position and 2 heat lances on 6 guys is decent anti-tank. Plus with Reavers not having to take a Dangerous Terrain test when sitting on Difficult Terrain (because of Skilled Rider), they can sit in cover in the middle of the board to cause trouble where needed. Not that that's a great tactic, but it's another way to use them I guess.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:01
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:Actually, if you give a guy two daggers, he's going to have a harder time hitting with both because fighting with two weapons is way, way loving harder than 40K makes it out to be. We ignore this obvious break with realism because it makes for a better game. And your example is doubly dumb because 40K assumes all hits he lands are with the better of the two weapons. What about the SM captain with a bolt pistol and power sword? Why is the pistol letting him make extra attacks with the sword? I guess I should have been more clear, I didn't mean he was fighting with both at the same time. I meant a dude with a single regular dagger in a fight vs the same exact situation except the dagger has poison on it this time. And yes I agree the pistol giving more sword attacks thing doesn't make any sense but they refuse to let me write the rules  . I mean it doesn't actually bother me that it works that way but there are are definitely more logical ways you could do pistols in CC although they would probably make things more complicated and you have to weigh increased complexity vs simplicity. I'm not at all opposed to abstraction, it's completely necessary, but it's not hard to write things so that they immediately make sense while still being an abstraction.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:08
|
|
|
You get extra attacks with the power weapon (or whatever) because you have to be loving careful not to let the guy line up a gun with your head. Takes some of your attention away, letting the other guy slip in an extra blow. Who's lacking imagination now?  Edit: Also, way back in 2nd you actually got an extra attack with the pistol, sort of. Things worked differently in CC back then, but if you scored a hit with the pistol, you actually got the hit(s) with the guns stats. Made Plasma Pistols a lot more useful. Also more bookkeeping, though. Slab Squatthrust fucked around with this message at 20:17 on Jul 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:14
|
|
|
A BIG loving BLUNT posted:I've been defending Matt Ward before it was cool to defend him! Defending his rules are fairly easy. It's his fluff that has no excuse. Cataphract posted:Concocting elaborate scenarios to try and justify the sense of poorly thought out rules is stupid and backwards. It's much better if the writers take care to write rules that make sense from the get go and don't require the players to rationalise them. I think it is a great thing that GW is making this a priority. Between the proposed content pace, the fact that they're posting a FAQ update relatively soon, and the general "rules that make sense at first glance" approach that they're putting together I'm feeling pretty good about this edition. Especially if they address things like Paladins and Nobs getting to LoSir! entire units and perform wound allocation shenanigans.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
moths posted:It's basically letting you score ringers. If you need to loop a horseshoe around a peg but I only need to hit it, I am effectively better at horseshoes. Overall you are right, but when talking about a specific system, that employs a "to hit" roll followed by a "to wound" roll, it makes more sense to let poison effect the last one.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Quick Rules question: The red box is a stationary ork trukk which is shooting at the 4 marines (a,b,c,d), it contains 12 ork boys each armed with shootas. The truck is 18 inches away from marine a, how many marines can the orks kill, assuming they have all hit and all wounded , and the marines have failed their saves? Looking at the rule book all the orks are in range when rolling to hit, and then on page 16 in the big rule book "As long as a model was in range of the enemy when to hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the shooting attack , even if the removal of casualties means that the closes model now lies out of range." So does this mean the orks can kill marines c,b,d even though they are out of range of those models?
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:18
|
|
|
Yes, absolutely.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:23
|
|
|
Robot Uprising posted:Looking at the rule book all the orks are in range when rolling to hit, and then on page 16 in the big rule book "As long as a model was in range of the enemy when to hit rolls were made, he is considered to be in range for the duration of the shooting attack , even if the removal of casualties means that the closes model now lies out of range." Ignore me! Slab Squatthrust fucked around with this message at 20:31 on Jul 15, 2012 |
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:26
|
|
|
The Gate posted:If only the A marine was in range then only he can be killed by the shooting, since the rest were not in range at any point. Notice it says, "model" and not "unit" when it's speaking about being in range. You target a unit though and not a model, so you can kill all of them as long as one model is in range.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:28
|
|
|
ghetto wormhole posted:You target a unit though and not a model, so you can kill all of them as long as one model is in range. Yeah, just double checked and I was thinking about the LoS restriction. If no one can see a model it's safe. So yeah, all 4 of those marines could be toasted. Miles O'Brian posted:I too like to ignore the second half of sentences in order to engineer the outcome preferable to me. VV Edit: You also appear to enjoy being a passive aggressive dick when someone makes a simple mistake!
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
The Gate posted:If only the A marine was in range then only he can be killed by the shooting, since the rest were not in range at any point. Notice it says, "model" and not "unit" when it's speaking about being in range. I too like to ignore the second half of sentences in order to engineer the outcome preferable to me.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:30
|
|
|
The Gate posted:If only the A marine was in range then only he can be killed by the shooting, since the rest were not in range at any point. Notice it says, "model" and not "unit" when it's speaking about being in range. The model it's referring to is the firing model, not the target model. You can tell because they have to be in range of the enemy.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:32
|
|
|
ghetto wormhole posted:I guess I should have been more clear, I didn't mean he was fighting with both at the same time. I meant a dude with a single regular dagger in a fight vs the same exact situation except the dagger has poison on it this time. So now he's a more effective combatant, and you could abstract that with a WS bonus. I'm not saying that would be a better rule than the current poison rule. I love how poison works; I play DE. What I'm saying is that it's not stupid, it's not lazy, and it does make sense. The Gate posted:You get extra attacks with the power weapon (or whatever) because you have to be loving careful not to let the guy line up a gun with your head. Takes some of your attention away, letting the other guy slip in an extra blow. I always like to imagine that the attacker is either hitting or feinting with the butt of the pistol all swashbuckler style. And if I remember correctly, the way it worked in 2E was once you figured out how many hits you scored (by comparing your best D6+WS roll to your opponent's best D6+WS roll and factoring in other modifiers), you split those hits evenly between the two weapons you were using, choosing which one would get the extra hit in the case of an odd number. So for example, if the SM captain hit 5 times, 3 would be with his powersword and 2 with his boltpistol. 2E CC was kind of weird and could take forever as you had to resolve it model by model. Going back to fantasy style rules was one of the smartest changes between 2E and 3E.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 20:48
|
|
|
The Gate posted:You also appear to enjoy being a passive aggressive dick when someone makes a simple mistake! I was hoping you would say something that I could quote the first half of and react angrily but it sort of falls apart here. 
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 21:16
|
|
|
PeterWeller posted:So now he's a more effective combatant, and you could abstract that with a WS bonus. I'm not saying that would be a better rule than the current poison rule. I love how poison works; I play DE. What I'm saying is that it's not stupid, it's not lazy, and it does make sense. Hey, 2E CC was loving great! Well, as long as you were playing Necromunda. For 40k it was a loving nightmare.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 21:21
|
|
|
Fil5000 posted:Hey, 2E CC was loving great! Well, as long as you were playing Necromunda. For 40k it was a loving nightmare. Yeah, 2E combat owns bones in Necromunda. It's how a juve with a stubgun and length of pipe can be a legitimate threat, and it's also how that juve can become a gang champion after one lucky round of bashing people with that pipe.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 21:52
|
|
|
So I am now the proud owner of: Imotehk the Stormlord Vanguard Obrywhatever 2 Necron Battleforce 1 box of triarch praetorians (to make into crypteks/lords) Soon to order 3 command barges, woo.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 21:55
|
|
|
The reason (well, one reason) that associative/dissociative mechanics are stupid to try and introduce/worry about is because we're talking about games where you can make up whatever reasoning you want to justify a mechanical change - what a designer should be worried about is the mechanical interactions, not the non-mechanical justifications for a rule. Making sure that a system of rules interacts properly should be their only priority as rules designers; justifying those rules in-game can be done afterwards.
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 22:06
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 7, 2024 09:51 |
|
|
So I met up with a guy off of Craigslist to buy a GW case for 30 bucks. Somehow I came back with the case and the following:  The case and the minis all for $50 bucks. That's the entire CSM battleforce, a CSM bike, and a Chaos Lord with jump pack. They're not painted very well so I have to strip them, which I'm not looking forward to at all. I just wanted to buy a case for the SM army I'm building and now I have two armies. Also, can anyone identify what these sprues are? The guy threw them in and it might be cool to do something with them.  
|
|
#
?
Jul 15, 2012 22:54
|
|
