|
This thread should 100% be called "Total War: Hammer Time". You're welcome OP.
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 11:19
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
It's amazing how much better I'm playing as empire on my second playthrough now I actually understand the building levels and stuff. Altdorf has an armoury, wizard circle, and altar of sigmar, as well as a stable. One of the towns has a barracks, and another has a gunnery school. I can recruit pretty much every unit other that tier 4 and 5 artillery but I've just conquered Nuln sooooo
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 15:19
|
|
|
Wilekat posted:I just besieged a Border Princes city and it looked like a quaint English city except every possible mountainous surface had a giant skull carved into it. It's like a normal mountain, but eeeevvviillll
|
|
#
¿
Jun 9, 2016 21:20
|
|
|
madmac posted:Estalia and Tilea are actually pretty big NPC nations without an major oppressive force keeping them down like Kislev or the Border Princes. I have to wonder what they even get up to in all the games where they don't streamroll the Bretts. In my orc campaign they settled the border Prince lands I razed and then started settling empire lands, but because it wasn't my objective to kill them I just let them get on with it
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
KnoxZone posted:Geez, Legendary is a rather cruel difficulty level. Being unable to play at half-speed or even being able to move the camera while paused is rough, especially when you have no mini-map. Battles with multiple stacks are going to be absurdly chaotic. I genuinely can't say I ever play with it slowed down and barely use the minimap. Is there a summary of the difference anywhere? I expect AI cheating on the strategic layer is what's going to gently caress me up most.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 10, 2016 17:19
|
|
|
Kainser posted:After skimming through the warhammer wiki so can I say that I am really pumped for CHAOS DWARFS Chaos Dwarfs probably won't be a thing unless they've confirmed it. They said that every army with an army book will be a faction, and the chaos dwarfs haven't had an army book.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 11, 2016 22:28
|
|
|
OK so I played some multiplayer last night with a friend and here are my thoughts: 1) Despite having played the table top game for years and played most the total war games we both sucked balls (though his gimmick armies like all night goblin fanatics didn't help) 2) Quick match is poo poo and doesn't match you anywhere near quickly enough to be of use. 3) There needs to be a "random" options for maps, I picked one at random manually and me and my mate started on a huge hill (and somehow lost), I then forgot to change the map and played the same dudes on the same map again. Since quick match is poo poo I just ended up setting it to "Oakenhammer" or whatever which is basically "flat field without much on it". Without this I always get conscious that I'm picking a map that's unfair to one side or another. 4) I actually think it would be interesting to see how this works with a tabletop style army restriction. In the tabletop game you say had 1,500 points and a minimum of 25% need to be spent on "core" choices (usually chaff like state troops, chaos warriors lol chaff, orc Boyz etc), a maximum of 25% on Lords/Hero's, a maximum of 50% on special units and a maximum of 25% on rare. So say you have 10,000 gold to spend on an army, if you had Karl Franz on Deathclaw (1,950 gold) you couldn't have a wizard, you'd need at least 2,500 gold spent on state troops (spears, swords, halbards, crossbow men, handgunners) which is like 4 units of halberdiers or 6 units of swordsmen minimum, a maximum of 5,000 gold could be spent on special units (knights, reiksguard, pistoliers, outsiders, greats words, mortars, cannons) which means you could have like two units of greats words, two cannons and a mortar, and a max of 2,500 could be spent on rare (hellstorm, steam tank, luminum or whatever, repeater volley gun, demigryph knights). So at 10,000 gold you could take any one of the "rare" units but not more than one. 5) i have no loving clue how to deal with a dwarf army that has 6 units of quarrellers 3 units of cannons, Thorgrim, ironbreakers and longbeards. The arrows alone slaughtered my stated troops. In the second game we had an artillery shoot out which I was winning until we both ran out of cannon balls and then my men advanced and died. 6) Siege battles are broken as gently caress when your opponent plays as VC and just sends 7 units of crypt horrors to batter down your gate and pile through. 7) Spirit Leech as a sniper spell is way too powerful. 8) Watching Karl Franz die in mid air to a bunch of vargheists is super sad. His health just melted.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 14:32
|
|
|
Wilekat posted:Picked up the Banner of Eternal Flame on my Orc campaign, which apparently imbues fire damage on everyone within 30m of the banner. This sounds... really good? Being fire damage I imagine it ignores armour? In the tabletop there were certain units weak against fire (like skeletons, tree spirits) and it prevents regeneration. If you give it to archers and they shoot say a unit of trolls, it negates their regeneration for a short while.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 16:56
|
|
|
Fresh Shesh Besh posted:Karl Franz doesn't die to vargheists. You probably got spirit leeched, which just kinda strengthens point 7 but still. Spearmen are enough to completely shrek crypt horrors from the front. If he was pouring in the gate he wouldn't even be able to flank you. You did something wrong there. Dwarves are the weakest multiplayer faction by far. They have no answer to cav or flanking, no real answer to monsters (slayers blow), and no mobility other than gyros. Get some demigryphs in your life (until their inevitable nerf). Empire is numba 1. Might not have been crypt horrors then, its whatever the big monster version of the crypt things are, not the big unit. I had a steam tank the first time I played them but that died something awful. Surely charging Knights into quarellers with great weapons won't go well for the Knights?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Captain Beans posted:Confirm your ports are open on your router, quick match will place me into games in < 60 seconds. I would definetly do this but I have no idea how to do this.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 17:22
|
|
|
Triskelli posted:With the exception of the absolute lightest cavalry it's almost always a good idea to charge any unit that lacks Charge Defense and/or Bonus vs Large. The question is how quickly you should pull the cavalry back out of the engagement. Ah right OK, so basically charge them in, do some damage, and then run off even with the monstrous cav? Maybe I need to try that again next time. I was trying to do that with the steam tank first time around but I felt like it just got battered and died.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Steamtanks are basically invincible unless targeted by certain magic or specific monster destroying weapons. I was doing multiple things at once so it's entirely possible he had stuff I missed, I suspect it's more to do with the fact he was shooting three units of cannons at it and they it was charged by pegasus Knights while its fighting Dwarfs with great weapons.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 17:42
|
|
|
Chomp8645 posted:Multiplayer? Yeah multiplayer. It was vs Brettonia and Dwarfs, we were empire and Brettonia. Their army was tons of peasants, the king of the hippo griff, three units of pegasus Knights some peasant bowmen, and a trebuchet for Brett. The dwarf had 5/6 quarellers (with great weapons?) 2-4 units of ironbreakers/longbeards, 3 units of cannons, and thorgrim. My empire was 4 units of shield and spears, 4 units of halberdiers, a Lord on a horse, a unit of greatswords, two rocket batteries, a cannon, three units of crossbow men, and the steam tank. My mate took the Brett King (but forgot to buy him a horse lol) 6 units of Knights and three units of grail Knights. Basically we started next to this massive hill so we took it but it was clear they were happy to sit back and shoot cannons at the steam tank and Knights all day. So I started marching down the hill and the steam tank swooped around the side and behind the dwarf melee units, I only saw a bit of a confused blur about what happened to my mates cav but I'm fairly sure he got bogged down fighting spear infantry instead of breaking and re charging. When my state troops got near the Dwarfs the units literally melted away. Like I'd look away and look back a few seconds later and an entire unit would be mostly dead and running. In the rematch I took more cannons and forgot to change the map, I switched out the steam tank for some more cannons and handgunners instead of crossbow men, and my mate played chaos and took kholek, some dragon ogres, and like 6 units of chosen. For ages we just exchanged artillery fire until we both ran out of ammo, and once we engaged basically the same thing happened (he should have stuck with the cav to be honest). His other lists were mainly gimmick lists, I did lol when he marched and entire line of night goblin fanatics up to an undead army and unleashed fanatics everywhere, before half the goblins dying and fleeing straight through my army.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 13, 2016 19:10
|
|
|
Ra Ra Rasputin posted:Was checking mods on the steam workshop, there is a mod to make Mannfred stronger because he is a "ancient vampire" because he can't already able to solo armies hard enough I guess? I mean Lore wise either him or Vlad died when they were grabbed and thrown off the side of some battlements into wooden spikes in an awesome murder suicide plan by the arch lector of the time. Can't be that bad rear end.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 09:29
|
|
|
toasterwarrior posted:Wood Elves and Beastmen are cool to me as the first DLC; a threat that can help unite Bretonnia or stop Estalia from running a train on the not-French all the drat time is fine by me. I suspect the first DLC will be Brettonia, Beastmen, and Wood Elf campaigns. Then they need to add High Elves, Dark Elves, Lizardmen, and the Skaven. Maybe there will be an Elf DLC that focuses on the fighting around the elf continent, and then one that focuses on the Skaven invasion of the lizard men cities in the end times. Skaven will be the most difficult to implement because they are everywhere but it's all underground.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 13:04
|
|
|
sassassin posted:They don't have much fluff because they're boring and extremely similar to other human factions in a land of crazy nonsense. Complete waste of time to develop them beyond a palette swap when there are still interesting factions to add. Yeah, Kislev is basically just the Empire but Russian. Its got like a couple of interesting differences but not enough to make a whole faction. Maybe they should have more regional specific units, like in Empire: Total War where if you were England then London made "Line Infantry", America made "Colonial Line Infantry", and Indian cities made "East India Company Infantry" etc.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 14:47
|
|
|
Voyager I posted:That sounds cute but I don't really feel compelled to go back to having a dozen functional reskins of the same unit. I don't think it's needed either, I'm just saying that's the most I could see being worth it for the factions like Kislev. Oh look I can build bear cavalry (reskinned demigrpyhs with tweaked stats), and my dudes all wear fur. Done.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 14:55
|
|
|
It's not as off topic as you think, the loader for the game told me the other day "You've played the game now explore the models!" and showed video game Karl Franz and model Karl Franz. The model for a game that doesn't exist. Lol.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 17:29
|
|
|
Arrgytehpirate posted:When did this happen? I've been GW free for maybe four years now. The codex going to 50 are what finally broke me. A while back the End Times actually happened and it was like a poorly written Games of Thrones story where like all the main characters died in the space of a month and then the world literally died, and sigmar (in the body of Karl franz) hurtles through space on a rock and when he lands this new game is created that is basically warhammer 40K but in olden times.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 14, 2016 17:31
|
|
|
rockopete posted:Thanks for this. Were there penalties to having opposed races like greenskins and dwarfs in the same army? I played a couple of GW ran tournaments for doubles games where you both field a relatively small army, and they played with those types of rules there and I think eventually included them as an option extra. Basically you could take any army combination to the doubles tournament, but each race was either something like friendly, neutral, or hostile with every other army in a chart, and it had the following effects: Friendly + Friendly meant you basically just play as if you're one big army. All your special rules effect each other, units fleeing through each other cause leadership tests, you share the same pool of magic dice (so say there are 7 dice, you could use 6 and me 1 or we could split them more evenly etc). Neutral + Neutral meant that your army rules didn't effect your opponent (e.g. "all regiments withing 12" get Hatred" doesn't apply to your ally's trooops) and you MUST split the magic pool evenly, with a free choice over the remainder (so if there are 5 dice in the pool I get two even if I have no wizard, basically handicapping your magic). Fleeing units could still make you panic though. Hostile + Hostile combinations had the above, but also if your units were close to each other they took a leadership penalty (as they don't trust the dudes standing next to them). However, because you didn't give a gently caress about your ally their units fleeing had 0 effect on you. The mercenaries that were mentioned I feel would be exempt from all this, as basically you know from the start they are just working for the cash, and they are effectively part of your army. It would be interesting if there was some sort of penalty for allying with bizarre factions though, to encourage more logical alliances (sure Thorgrim is leading his Dwarfs to fight alongside his best ally, Grimgore).
|
|
#
¿
Jun 15, 2016 09:37
|
|
|
Verranicus posted:Does Radious increase the general difficulty of the game? Everyone always talks it up so I installed it from the get-go but I'm thinking it might be part of why I'm having such trouble when I did fine in other TW games. I've never played it but from what I've read about it I cant say it sounds good. Its not fixing something fundamentally broken and unintentional, or some poor implementation of an idea, it's doing stuff like ensuring most units fight to the death, despite breaking units and making them run being a core game mechanic. It would be like modding Call of Duty to make every gun the same stats wise. Sure some people may like that but a core concept of the franchise and the game is that they are all different.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 11:20
|
|
|
Third World Reggin posted:And when I say radious added higher leadership and people are not happy about that, I mean a swordsman in the empire went from 60 to 65 while a spearman of the empire went from 60 to 60. Which is a dumb and stupid change. Why is a man with a sword and shield braver than a dude with a sword and shield? I'm already not a fan of the fact they changed halbardiers from the table top from being another variation on normal dudes to somehow better and more expensive (in the TT they all cost the same if you buy shields and it's basically a trade off of more defence (swordsmen), more models in combat range (spearmen), or more damage (halberds)). It just seems like one of those mods changing stuff for changing stuff sake, or to nerf fundamental parts of the game which he doesn't like.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 12:11
|
|
|
Kanos posted:
I wouldn't have given the halbardiers armour piercing, just extra weapon damage. The anti-large thing I don't think matters too much as spearmen also have anti-large so I don't buy that's a factor. On the TT they did "pierce" armour but anyone with strength 4 or more pierced armour to a degree, so they don't need it for fluff reasons, Orc Boyz were strength 4 and pierced armour exactly the same and they aren't armour piercing (for example). I'm actually not as bothered about the cost, more bothered about the fact they need a blacksmith or whatever to make them. I can't think of another unit that requires two buildings to create and is a relative weak as halbardiers without some sort of gimmick.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 16, 2016 13:23
|
|
|
Tehan posted:Is there a good way to do early sieges without artillery or elites as the Empire? It always seems to boil down to throwing swordsmen at swordsmen at hoping. Short of hoping for a light wizard from the first scripted battle I don't know how better to play it. Loads of infantry, spread out across the front of the wall. Build battering rams and send some dude to bash in both gates as then they need to take units off the wall to defend the gates. If they have a garrison you should be able to beat them like this as what you want to do is stretch out their army along the wall using superior numbers. Then when you see where the weakest point is, throw a couple of extra units there and your Lord to help "win" that section of the wall. Then roll down the wall using your now free troops. If there's a huge garrison or a garrison and an army, you may need two stacks. The tactics are the same it's just you'll need more dudes.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 09:57
|
|
|
WHAT A GOOD DOG posted:Actually, sorry, the best method to taking a city is to put all your crossbowmen/quarrelers/etc in a massive clump just to the left/right of a tower's range in front of the walls (or in front of a destroyed tower) and send your Lord up the wall. The AI will flip their poo poo and send infantry blobs and archer blobs after him while he's standing on the walls and your archers can gun them down as they get near.. By the time your archers run out of ammo, you send in the swordsmen to mop up the remainder (provided you haven't already won). This method doesn't work for Chaos/VC, obviously, but for them you should just autoresolve city maps anyways. You'll usually win with like.. 10 casualties. Sure, I mean I guess this works, I never tried it though as I fight with MAXIMUM HONOUR.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 10:59
|
|
|
How does armour work precisely? Is it just (Non AP weapon damage - armour) + AP weapon damage = Total weapon damage So you could get something with 30 weapon damage and 15 AP damage against 20 armour doing: (30-20)+15=25 And against 10 armour doing (30-10)+15=35 Or am I missing something?
|
|
#
¿
Jun 17, 2016 16:53
|
|
|
So most of manfreds army was dead and he got attacked by a full stack of dwarfs. My 190 dudes + vargulf + terrogheist beat 700 Dwarfs. Crazy.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 18, 2016 04:34
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:
The good thing about dwarf ranged units is they are still dwarfs. Dude still has armour and a shield. You can use your thunderers and quarrellers to shoot cavalry that flanks. Early on especially the only cavalry you'll really be fighting is orc stuff and it melts to quarrellers. With the AI flanking tactics you basically just need to keep a unit in each flank and basically position them so they can't side or rear charge a unit without going through them. It's one of the annoying things to deal with as a player because the AI can move up both flanks at the same time but you can only position one at a time as you're a inferior human.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 18:56
|
|
|
ChickenWing posted:curse my inefficient flesh I'll be honest unless the terrain is in some weird set up I'm not a very original commander. I'll set up a line of troops, with a second line of troops behind them. Then I'll have some sort of half decent unit (e.g. Greatswords) on each flank to act as an anchor. I will then have crossbows and artillery behind all that, and have at least one unit of cavalry on each flank fairly far from the anchor unit. The whole point is to try and get the enemy to engage my front line, and then use my second line of troops to protect the flanks, reinforce the main line, or march the main line and attack the enemy in the rear, which is also what the anchor units and cavalry can do. Once you free up part of your line, you just roll it down the other end, taking the unit on the left and attacking the unit next to it in the rear. There are a couple of old Roman formations that are interesting to learn for the theoretical side of things. Like you can create a big line but have second or third rows of infantry on just one flank, and you try to overwhelm that side first and then quickly go down the line.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 20, 2016 21:06
|
|
|
Fangz posted:I think people are rather exaggerating. Or they are looking at the AI with their full stack fleeing their own full stack and not noting that the AI is comparing the quality of your units. A full stack of basic units against your Chosen is not an even fight. I don't know really, I see their point. I mean you see the bar right? And if it says 50/50 and you take the battle you're basically thinking "I reckon the bar is wrong, I reckon I'm going to win this". If you were genuinely only 50/50 on whether you would win the battle or not you wouldn't take it. The other day I won a battle where the bar was all red because I looked at the AI army and saw it was like 5 melee units, 3 handgunner units, two cannons and a mortar vs my 8 units of spearmen with Shields, Karl Franz, 2 units of swordsmen, 4 units of crossbow men, and a unit of handgunners. I won the battle in the end (fairly easily really) but the only reason I took it in the first place is because I thought the bar was wrong, and actually I was at least 51% sure I could win. So the problem is people see the AI never taking "close" fights and then complain, because (and they are totally right) the close fights are the most interesting. But when you take 50/50 fight or a 40/60 fight or whatever in their favour, you're only doing so because you don't think that's what the odds are, but the AI DOES think that's what the odds are. Honestly they should do away with it and just rank each army in terms of number of men, the money spent on each army, the total experience of the units, and what the mix of the army is and let players judge for themselves. Keep the bar hidden as the AI's personal inter Al judgement of those stats. Kitchner fucked around with this message at 10:49 on Jun 22, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 10:46
|
|
|
Ilustforponydeath posted:Sounds kinda newbie unfriendly, I mean how is a starting player supposed to know the charging strength of a unit of caviaran humpriders? You don't, you just see something like: You: 800 men Him: 900 men You: 3,000 gold Him: 2,700 gold You: 680xp Him: 40xp You: 6/4/2 infantry/cavalry/artillery Him: 4/10/0 infantry/cavalry/artillery You can obviously use graphs or whatever to make it look good but even from that you know it's probably fairly even, albeit two different styles of army, but your troops experience may give you an edge. I mean as a rule of thumb if they spent more gold than you on their army it's probably better, so maybe that one should go first.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 22, 2016 11:26
|
|
|
jfood posted:That's because I don't think you really grasp the nuance of orc politics or command structure. See, dere's da boss and ee's da biggest, 'ardest git dere iz. If dere wuz anuvva git wot wuz big n' mean, dey'd foit. Da 'orde ain't goin' nowheres if deys fightin', so dat uvva git youze finkin' ov, ee's dead already. This, but in English.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 24, 2016 10:13
|
|
|
Yeah basically Mannfred is who we need to blame for Age of Sigmar.
|
|
#
¿
Jun 27, 2016 13:54
|
|
|
Onmi posted:When you charge should you charge in a thin formation or a wide formation? Think about it this way: If you outnumber the enemy then you want to have a long line to try and get them to stretch out, or of they don't you surround them and attack from all sides. If you're a small elite army, you want to present the most condensed front you can, to minimise the number of enemy units they can bring to fight you. So if you're an orc player with loads of boys you want a big long line, and as the centre crashes into the enemy army you loop the ends around and attack from multiple sides. If you're a dwarf player you want to basically avoid that as much as possible, but if you're outnumbered then you're better off forming a tight square to prevent the enemy from using their numbers against you.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 7, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
Prokhor Zakharov posted:Something like Crusader Kings would lend itself to GoT much much better than Total War. There's only so many 'guy with sword/bow/horse' combos, especially in a setting that's mostly homogenous. No more so than literally every total war game prior to this. I mean off the top of my head you have: * [Region] Men-at-arms and archers * Westerlands/Reach/Stormlands/Crownlands/Riverlands knights * Northern Cavalry * Knights of the Vale * Cranockmen (bog men) * Dornish spearmint and archers * Second Sons infantry/archers/cavalry * Golden Company infantry/archers/cavalry * Unsullied Spearmen * Various other sellsword things * Dothraki Screamers * Wildlings * Giants * Nightswatch infantry/archers * Dragons * Various siege engines including wildfire catapults * White Walkers * White walker zombies Weirdly i think if you set the game around a couple of key parts of the history it actually makes perfect sense. Firstly there is aegons invasion. I think he invades with 3 Dragons and like 5,000 men and bitch slaps the poo poo out of everyone while massively outnumbered due to his Dragons. Then there's Roberts Rebellion. Everything goes to poo poo and it's Norh/River lands/vale/stormlands vs Crownlands/The Reach/Dorne. Then you have the war of Five Kings which is what the books is and it all goes to poo poo then too. I mean it's not really any worse than "Romans with spears, Greeks with spears, Romans on horses, iberians on horses" etc. It's one of the reasons this is my favourite total war, there's a lot of diversity and you can't just use the same tactic vs every enemy on the map because they are all varying of "dude with weapon" Kitchner fucked around with this message at 03:18 on Jul 10, 2016 |
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2016 03:16
|
|
|
So I need some advice. I've been playing on Very Hard as the Empire, and this is generally whats been going down: 1) Kill secessionists 2) Take Nuln and it's towns 3) take some middle stuff, leave northern guys as meat shield against vikings 4) Kill Archaeon the Ever Failure and his hoardes 5) Sort of kill VC 6) Get hosed by Viking Armageddon, Tilea, and every other fucker who is still lwft standing attacking me at once The battles aren't beating me, I'm just getting outnumbered and attacked on all sides after Chaos dies, are there some tips and tricks that you need to do on Very Hard that you didn't need to do on Normal?
|
|
#
¿
Jul 10, 2016 23:25
|
|
|
I was playing a dwarf campaign last night and felt as others have said orcs are overestimated or Dwarfs are underestimated. With dwarf warriors and a bunch of quarrelers you can slaughter orc armies a lot bigger that you
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 12:23
|
|
|
The Lone Badger posted:Dwarfs are incredibly buff in the early game. Warriors and Quarrelers are top-notch units and you can recruit them both from turn 3. Their later units aren't gamechangers like the tier 4 / 5 Empire units though (though Ironbreakers are the toughest thing in the game) Yeah I was doing really well in that as I basically rushed the Greenskins and took black crag early on and then pushed South meaning they didn't have any decent tier units and tier 1/2 dwarf units > practically everyone else
|
|
#
¿
Jul 11, 2016 12:31
|
|
|
Mans posted:i want to see the lore explanation for this Gamesworkshop in the 80s and 90s designed everything in primary colours and while high on drugs
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 00:45
|
|
|
|
| # ¿ May 1, 2024 19:53 |
|
|
Ravenfood posted:As far as how it acts, yeah. They could be a lot more unique on the battlefield than "cannon that has unlimited morale" like they are now. On the table top there is a random chance each turn the cannon demon goes mad and tries to run forward and kick the poo poo out of people in close combat. It's pretty badass.
|
|
#
¿
Jul 18, 2016 23:13
|
|