Loss of sub faction support?

[jaxom]

Some sleep-deprived thoughts.

 

LED - lowest effective dose. What’s the minimal amount of rules necessary to achieve meaningful subfactions? 

Why do subfactions exist in the first place? 
 

If I have a standard demi-company from each of the big 9 Chapters, no special units or named characters, how would they be different? What C:SM unit options would be the dials to turn? Weapon choices to choose for said units?

 

I imagine a world where some one didn’t throw the baby out with the bath water and 8th launched with force orgs only having a strat and secondary objective unlocked by them. A world where every army got the USR strats, one faction strat they chose when list building, one subfaction strat, and the force org strat. Each can be used 1/game and CP don’t exist. Meh, wishes coming true in one hand and blech in the other, see which hand is full first.

How many rules for an army are too many?

[spafe]

3 minutes ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

I am neither trolling, nor strawmaning.

Okay, thats fair. It was the un-intentional misreading of what I was saying then that was frustrating me. I apologise for not making my point clearer.  I am not saying I want the game to be balanced and unbalanced at the same time, I am saying that I want a pick up matched play game to be balanced. at the moment it is so bloated with so many layers of rules that this isnt the case. If by some miracle gw can provide a balanced game where the traits/options/org charts are (more or less) equal, and none of them are trap options, sure keep the billions of combinations that are there. BUT personally I dont see that happening, and the unbalanced/combi options that exist with these multitudes of traits are too much for my player group to bother with. So we dont get games in of matched play. as in, it just doesnt happen. I've had a handful of narrative ones but thats it. I want to game. I want to play 40k, therefore I want less options because it makes it easier for gw to balance these for there to be less trap options that make for one sided games. hopefully that makes sense.

 

Also, as an aside, the reason you got the confused response from me was because you are selectively quoting me and mis representing what I said. I could do the same (I was very tempted to instead of just replying above with I disagree), as you want lots of layers of rules, but then dismiss crusade as too much to keep track of and janky. thats because you have a level of complexity you are happy with, and thats fine, but I could easily have cherry picked those parts of your post back to you and you'd have probably given me a confused response too, because its not what you meant either.

[Scribe]

There is no harm in what some see as trap options either. Someone may like a rule/trait/whatever, even if by 'meta' its objectively bad.

 

I really dont think traits are the problem, in any way at all. Its the bolt on extra system that is the Strats that has had the largest negative impact on the game.

[Cpt_Reaper]

I've had to re-write this like 4 or 5 times, so please bear with me.

 

I absolutely do not enjoy making others feel like I am trolling them. As I mentioned earlier, I had a 10 year losing streak. I have been told to quit by several people in my time playing 40k. I have also been publicly shamed when I tried to give advice ("Nobody should ever listen to you about this game" quoted verbatim). I have felt absolutely awful about a game and hobby that is meant to fill me with joy. The thought that I could, even unintentionally, come across as a troll fills me with so much shame.

 

I just want to enjoy 40k, without taking enjoyment away from anyone. And I do enjoy 9th edition, warts and all. I know it has flaws, but they aren't enough to take the shine off of it.

 

So I am sorry if I was overly hostile, or caused any hurt.

[spafe]

No worries bud! As I say, it was likely because I must have not explained the differences properly (just can never tell if you are being trolled online!). 

 

[Orange Knight]

@Cpt_Reaper

 

Your local scene sounds awful. No one should be subjected to those kinds of comments, and I'm also saddened by the fact that none of your opponents seem to have geared their army or playstyle to a more narrative experience. 

 

A lot of people have limited collections and can only play their faction a certain way - and that's fine. Then you have the lunatics like myself who own every unit in triplicate (more of us than we'd like to admit). When I face a new opponent in a casual setting I inquire about what kind of game they want, and based on the response and a quick chat about their army, I moderate the list I field.

 

This isn't difficult in practice but very few pursue this kind of behaviour. I swore never to return to the Dakka forum because people there abused me for once saying that if you ever find yourself in a position where you are teaching someone how to play the game, you should allow them to win in order to encourage them more.

People there couldn't believe that you would ever play a game of 40k for any reason other than winning.

 

I think this tournament mindset is a bit corrosive when applied to every situation because at the end of the day, a single game of 40k is an optional experience we engage in that can take up a large chunk of time. What happened to simply enjoying the social experience of rolling some dice together whilst admiring two painted armies on the tabletop?

 

To return to the topic at hand. Some people have vehemently disagreed with me on the point I made about a toned down competitive ruleset and a more divergent narrative game. 

 

A toned down game with a focus on fair rules across factions and units will benefit people in a pick up environment where there is little say over how a game is to be played.  But we as a community also have to be the ones to drive a focus on friendly, narrative play for the simple joy of playing warhammer. 

 

Sadly there are few who champion this point of view, but they do exist. Maybe something could even be arranged via this forum.

 

[Schurge]

12 hours ago, ThePenitentOne said:

 

Crusade was the best part of 9th, and while I suspect they'll try and keep a narrative play mode alive in 10th, it's literally not possible for them to do justice to Crusade if we return to Index Hammer. That's the biggest reason I'm unlikely to go down the 10th ed rabbit hole.

 

It's almost a trigger to me when I see people suggest the wholesale removal of Crusade. It suggests to me a profound ignorance of the notion of inclusive gaming. GW doesn't just want MANY or even MOST gamers in its player base... It wants ALL OF THEM. It wants warband roleplayers and Inquisitor 28 and Blanchitsu house-rulers and the Oldboys who buy Ambulls and Zoats as much as it wants ignorant tournament players who either forget that the rest of exist, or worse, actively try to erase us.

 

For the record, I think it would be just awesome if GW took the thing they currently call Matched play and reduce it to what you and all the other minimalist, balance-at-all-costs types want it to be, and left the big messy sandbox that is Crusade to the rest of us. And that includes all of the strats that are "useless" to tournament players, but are gold for campaign play and mission building, where story-hooks disconnected from the simple binary of win/loss may influence the use of strats- for example, in Urban Conquest, certain territories conferred the ability to use particular strats based on objective control.

 

If you think anyone who has enjoyed Crusade is going to be satisfied with titles for special boosts and the like, then you probably haven't been paying much attention to just how much Crusade has to offer narrative players. Just because a ruleset isn't used by you, or any of the people at your store, or even any of the people you know, that does not mean that it isn't used... And no one really knows the demographics of 40k's player base. GW insiders may have some idea, but it's vague at best.

 

There are organized Narrative Play events... I think a Grand Narrative just finished up in November? Apparently it's a quarterly circuit that culminates in the Grand event.

 

 

 

This is kind of a primary example of why the goal shouldn't be inclusivity and that if something is for everyone it's for noone. (Though anyone who likes something for what it is shouldn't generally feel excluded due to social stigma.)

 

Right now Warhammer is for no one and while it's reached World of Warcraft levels of success it's still a rotting corpse like it's God Emperor, sustained only by its own momentum.

 

This game isn't for competitive players.

 

It's not for fluffy players.

 

It's not for people who like fun and interesting gameplay systems.

 

It's not for those who don't have tons of excess spending money.

 

It's not for the old fans - much less old fans of the lore.

 

I guess it's for the new fans... But soon they will be old, burnt out fans, too.

 

It's not for hobbyists and DIYers.

 

It's definitely for people who will spend whatever price for their plastic fix.

 

This game needs radical change. I don't know what that is, but as a fluffy player who prioritizes fun it hasn't been for me in a long time.

 

In hindsight this game was always like the Elder Scrolls series for me. The games weren't that good, but you made your own fun and roleplayed to make up the difference of lackluster and dated gameplay because it was the only thing in town that offered such an expansive universe.

 

I am fine with GW doing whatever to the game so long as what results is actually good. (Famous last words...) If this is a good balanced game first it will very easily double as a good fluffy game for those who want to play like that. I cite many of the games competitive skirmish competitors like MCP and Judgement.

 

Hell... I even cite some of GWs side games like Warcry, though that comes with the caveat that the game overall was very dumbed down and weak it was just fun over all both as a competitive game and a fluffy game having done both tournaments and campaigns with it's system.

[Scribe]

D&D has multiple rule sets, and a culture of modification and collaboration.

MTG has multiple formats, based on a primary rule set.

40K, has a revolving door of rules, and cannot even have a stable consistent vision over a single edition.

 

There is a middle ground. There is a way to provide the competitive and relatively quick game many would like (think 5e) as well as the sandbox of Crusade. GW simply needs to choose to support both.

 

I would absolutely love it, if GW put out an SRD and said 'go forth and make 40K'.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

2 minutes ago, Scribe said:

D&D has multiple rule sets, and a culture of modification and collaboration.

MTG has multiple formats, based on a primary rule set.

40K, has a revolving door of rules, and cannot even have a stable consistent vision over a single edition.

 

There is a middle ground. There is a way to provide the competitive and relatively quick game many would like (think 5e) as well as the sandbox of Crusade. GW simply needs to choose to support both.

 

I would absolutely love it, if GW put out an SRD and said 'go forth and make 40K'.

I think it would help if the tournament style rules were static or relatively static and all lore events brought into the game like AoO and what not using the narrative/crusade format.

[Scribe]

Just now, Inquisitor_Lensoven said:

I think it would help if the tournament style rules were static or relatively static and all lore events brought into the game like AoO and what not using the narrative/crusade format.

 

I would predict (as again we have no idea how most players play) that this would doom those books into selling a fraction.

 

I agree though, that there could be a static or near static system of core rules that could  be the baseline for pickup/competitive/tournament style play.

 

As I look back at 3rd, through 5th, its really right there and has been all along.

[Triszin]

I thought a bit more.

 

Stratagems. Most players want a universal set of 10-14 that Everyone has access to.

Then 3~ unique strats per sub faction.

 

What if for army rules we had something similar. As has been discussed prior.

 

For custom armies/non book standard

10~ pre built generic subfaction rules. (That everyone has access to)

With the addendum of *

* Being: the faction you take has a super faction trait that is then applied to it.

 

Ex.

 

Super faction trait

Then they choose the subfaction rules

 

Ex1.

Tyranids:

*Super faction trait is: +1 to charge and advance

subfaction trait:

Overwhelming numbers

Natural 6 to hit generate a second hit when within 10"

 

Guard:

*Super faction Trait: ???

subfaction trait:

Overwhelming numbers

Natural 6 to hit generate a second hit when within 10"

 

 

Or you choose

Tyranids: leviathan

That has it's own unique set of rules/trust.

 

 

And you limit the unique faction builds to 1-3 options. Like the strats

 

Meaning all armies have the same generic builds, bit they get a twist from the super that is bog standard for that faction.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Triszin

[ThePenitentOne]

@Schurge Didn't use the auto quote feature, because I wanted to go line by line. So here goes:

 

This is kind of a primary example of why the goal shouldn't be inclusivity and that if something is for everyone it's for noone. (Though anyone who likes something for what it is shouldn't generally feel excluded due to social stigma.)

 

Right here, we're peaceful, because we're talking about a game of toy soldiers... And I'm going to try and keep it that way. In the context of toy soldiers, I can (and will) let opinions like this go. But before moving on, I do need to see that people for whom statements like "if something is for everyone it's for noone" come easy to the lips or keyboard tend to be people with whom I don't tend to see eye to eye on a great range of topics.

 

But saying more than that is a bad idea... So water under the bridge on this one my dude.

 

[/quote] Right now Warhammer is for no one and while it's reached World of Warcraft levels of success it's still a rotting corpse like it's God Emperor, sustained only by its own momentum. [/quote]

 

YOU may not like it. The people at your store may not like it. Your friends and online buddies might not like it. But if it has reached WoW levels of success, obviously there are plenty of people who do like it enough to invest in it. Momentum plays a role in that for sure- the sunk cost fallacy is real... But a system reset and return to Index Hammer kills a good chunk of the momentum you cite here. A 9.5 would capitalize on momentum far more than a reset.

 

This game isn't for competitive players.

 

I won't argue with this- I'm not a competitive player, and while I could quote competitive players who have said there's a greater spread of factions getting top ten finishes than there ever have been, I'll just stay in my lane. And speaking of...

 

It's not for fluffy players.

 

It's not for people who like fun and interesting gameplay systems.

 

It cannot be disputed that there are more tools in this version of the game than there ever have been for fluffy players. You may prefer some of the tools we've lost to some of what we've picked up instead- that's a fair and valid point of view. But it cannot be disputed that we have more tools now than we ever have.

 

We've been told since the 2nd edition that sisters who lose faith on the battlefield swear Penitent Vows and become Sisters Repentia, but it took until 9th to have rules that let us do that. We've been told that Drukhari fight over territory in Commorragh, but we've never had rules to do it until 9th- though here's a shout out to Gangs of Commorragh... Though it was unsupported and shallow, it was at least an attempt to do what 9th eventually did for the whole army rather than a handful of units. 

 

It's not for those who don't have tons of excess spending money. [/qoute]

 

Nope. 9th has more material designed for 500 point armies than any version of 40k since Rogue Trader. You just have to stop playing Matched in stores to realize it. One of the things about the Crusade system that is AWESOME is that escalation is tied into the RP system, meaning that when you earn your RP, you can spend it on growing your army if you have the models, but there are plenty of other ways to spend RP if you don't.

 

My Deathwatch army consists of 12 infantry models, representing 4 units, and there's a story building right in the list- A Watchmaster's Fortress has been reduced to a mere 5 Firstborn soldiers.... Until Kyria Draxus arrives with 5 Primaris soldiers to help the DW break through the Alien enemy lines to escape and regroup. 

 

 

There have been some lore unfriendly changes, it's true. I'm okay with Primaris, because I think that the potential schism between them and Firstborn is one of the most interesting narrative hooks to hit Marines in quite some time; I also LOVE the Crusade rules for Torchbearer fleets. But I get a lot of people hated them, and I do understand their reasons for that even if I personally disagree.

 

But to say this edition is not for old fans is a broken statement on its face, and if you disagree, take it up with the GSC and the Leagues of Votann. 

 

I guess it's for the new fans... But soon they will be old, burnt out fans, too.

 

At last, we agree on something; I think GW might be underestimating the number of people who will stick with them through a full reset. They kept some of the player base they built with 8th- maybe even most of them- because the editions were compatible.  If the 10th returns to Index Hammer? I think they can anticipate at least a 105 net contraction of the player base, especially given inflation on basic survival items like food and shelter.

 

It's not for hobbyists and DIYers.

 

In matched play, load-out limitations have hampered the types of conversions that people have become used to over the RT-7th years.

 

But Crusade is literally a goldmine of modelling and converting opportunities. My Crusade units literally get a modelling upgrade everytime they level. Sometimes it's just another skull on their base, or a purity seal. Other times it requires magetization or multiple heads. My Dialogus used the Novitiate model from XP 1-5; then I replaced her with the Dialogus model- without the hover lectern and scripture backpack from XP 6-15; at XP 16-30 she'll have the backpack, from XP 31-50 she'll have the lectern, and I haven't figured out 51+ yet, but I will likely give her a Crusade Relic which will need to be modelled.

 

I've built terrain based the Dark Eldar territories in their Crusade content.

 

And again, I know not everybody gets to do these things, because they don't have a regular group who will support that kind of play and provide those opportunities. I'm not blaming players for not playing the game right (something I'm frequently accused of), but I am saying that if the game has things that you claim it does not because you are not in a position to use things or have no desire to use them, that isn't the game's fault either.

 

It's definitely for people who will spend whatever price for their plastic fix.

 

Another place where I agree.

 

This game needs radical change. I don't know what that is, but as a fluffy player who prioritizes fun it hasn't been for me in a long time. [/qoute]

 

I'll cut you some slack for including "for me" in the second sentence, but I'd like to have seen an IMHO to preface the first sentence, because there are some people who would be content to play this edition as is if not forever, for at least another year or two.

 

In hindsight this game was always like the Elder Scrolls series for me. The games weren't that good, but you made your own fun and roleplayed to make up the difference of lackluster and dated gameplay because it was the only thing in town that offered such an expansive universe.

 

And it still IS the only game in town that offers such an expansive universe, and that universe is more expansive than it's ever been. The difference is that you don't have to do as much as you used to in order to "roleplay to make up the difference" - if you want to conquer territory in Commorragh, you no longer have to make up the territory for you to do that, or figure out what the benefit of possessing said territory is. If you want your BSS to swear a Penitent Oath because they fail to hold an objective, you don't need to invent mechanics for doing that- or to redeem themselves.

 

There's a lot of book keeping, it's true- and that's why Crusade is probably at its best from 25-50PL... but if you didn't mind doing work to invent rules for RP back in the day, the fact that you no longer have to do that should empower to put a similar amount of effort into book keeping.... Assuming you WANT a Crusade to grow to 100-150PL.

 

[qutoe]

I am fine with GW doing whatever to the game so long as what results is actually good. (Famous last words...) If this is a good balanced game first it will very easily double as a good fluffy game for those who want to play like that. I cite many of the games competitive skirmish competitors like MCP and Judgement.

 

You SAY you're okay with GW doing whatever so long as what you get is good... But when I told you that I'm down for Matched play that does whatever you want it to be, you come back at me with BS about how everything shouldn't be for everybody. So CLEARLY you either AREN'T okay with getting EXACTLY the game you want UNLESS it also becomes the only way ANYONE ELSE IS ALLOWED TO PLAY, or you just weren't thinking about the implications of what you were writing. I proposed an everyone wins solution, and it wasn't good enough for you, so forgive me the assumption that there's at least a small part of you that's as interested in gatekeeping as having fun.

 

Feel free to clarify if you think I've misinterpretted your words.

 

Hell... I even cite some of GWs side games like Warcry, though that comes with the caveat that the game overall was very dumbed down and weak it was just fun over all both as a competitive game and a fluffy game having done both tournaments and campaigns with it's system.

 

I haven't played it, though it did intrigue me. I don't know how well it supports escalation campaigns, but I'd be very, very surprised to find it gives you as much to work with as Crusade. I've lloked into to the AoS Path to Glory stuff, because many have suggested that 10th's Crusade equivalent (assuming it has one) is more likely to resemble AoS PtG due to its use of more generic gowth and advancement mechanics.

 

I don't suppose it will surprise anyone that I wasn't impressed. It's better than nothing, and if I hadn't been spoiled by Crusade, I'd be behind it. But generic advances and long term goals really fall short of what we already have with Crusade.

 

It's not for the old fans - much less old fans of the lore.

[Scribe]

I feel you miss the point. Its not for any one group, its for a multitude of player types with variously competing desires, and solving none of them particularly well. "Its for everyone, and nobody."

 

You can love Crusade all you like, for those who dont give it a second thought, it may as well not exist.

 

I heard a saying once about specialists and generalists. They know everything about nothing, and nothing about everything, respectively.

 

40K is trying to be a passable game for 'everyone' but its doing it across various rule sets that may or may not be appropriate or applicable to the task at hand.

[Evil Eye]

Regarding the original subject of subfaction/army traits, having been reading some older editions I actually think the solution is to have something similar to the 4E Marine Codex. In that, you had the option to make a Codex-divergent army, which would let you pick advantages and disadvantages (you had to select a drawback if you wanted to go divergent) to represent your custom chapter. The existing Chapters were represented but only as "example builds" using this system (excluding Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Black Templars who had their own Codexes). To me at least, something like this seems best; it majorly trims down on bookkeeping and streamlines the experience whilst still allowing a large amount of customization (if not moreso!), and also puts homegrown factions on a level playing field with existing ones.

[Sothalor]

32 minutes ago, Scribe said:

I feel you miss the point. Its not for any one group, its for a multitude of player types with variously competing desires, and solving none of them particularly well. "Its for everyone, and nobody."

 

You can love Crusade all you like, for those who dont give it a second thought, it may as well not exist.

 

I heard a saying once about specialists and generalists. They know everything about nothing, and nothing about everything, respectively.

 

40K is trying to be a passable game for 'everyone' but its doing it across various rule sets that may or may not be appropriate or applicable to the task at hand.

 

We can even broaden this point out. 40k is inherently exclusive towards certain groups - not necessarily actively, but passively, by its very format, aesthetic and thematic focus. It's a tabletop game of miniatures (*ding ding*, a chunk of people have already tuned out there - voluntarily), built around players competing against each other (another chunk of people have tuned out), themed around wargaming (more people tune out), using rules of various complexity and granularity (yet more people self-select out here).

 

And that's all without getting into aesthetics, lore, tone, visual design, buy-in cost, etc.

 

And this isn't specific to 40k, it's a reality that applies to... well, just about everything ranging from cuisine to architecture to fountain pens.

 

The point is, nothing can appeal to everybody - and that's okay. It's unavoidable when dealing with humans.

Edited March 21, 2023 by Sothalor

[jaxom]

Connecting "covering too much so doesn't do enough" to the original topic, it seems like it is an overall question of cognitive load (removing missions from the equation for the moment). There's only so much a person can track and subfactions may not be what a person wants to track compared to other things.

[Inquisitor_Lensoven]

4 hours ago, Sothalor said:

 

We can even broaden this point out. 40k is inherently exclusive towards certain groups - not necessarily actively, but passively, by its very format, aesthetic and thematic focus. It's a tabletop game of miniatures (*ding ding*, a chunk of people have already tuned out there - voluntarily), built around players competing against each other (another chunk of people have tuned out), themed around wargaming (more people tune out), using rules of various complexity and granularity (yet more people self-select out here).

 

And that's all without getting into aesthetics, lore, tone, visual design, buy-in cost, etc.

 

And this isn't specific to 40k, it's a reality that applies to... well, just about everything ranging from cuisine to architecture to fountain pens.

 

The point is, nothing can appeal to everybody - and that's okay. It's unavoidable when dealing with humans.

Obviously they didn’t mean a game that appeals to literally everyone on the planet.

id be willing to bet they meant a game that would appeal to everyone within their target demographic.

[Lord_Ikka]

Loss of subfaction support is going to be a contentious topic no matter what. It all depends on how you play the game and will be individual to each player- no two players are going to have the same opinion on it, no matter if they play the same style or not. I'm a competitive player, though my record is fairly poor, but I don't think competition play is the end all be all towards the game.

 

I think that the new IG codex is a decent way of making subfactions go by the wayside- instead of having six or so subfactions and then a set of custom traits to make your own subfaction, you just use the custom traits. As long as each codex gets a good amount of custom traits, I don't see any specific reason that subfactions should be a thing; just use the custom traits to guide your army where it would best fit (either via lore or mechanics) and go from there. Of course there will be meta builds that have the best options, but that won't ever change.

[Rogue]

15 hours ago, Evil Eye said:

Regarding the original subject of subfaction/army traits, having been reading some older editions I actually think the solution is to have something similar to the 4E Marine Codex. In that, you had the option to make a Codex-divergent army, which would let you pick advantages and disadvantages (you had to select a drawback if you wanted to go divergent) to represent your custom chapter. The existing Chapters were represented but only as "example builds" using this system (excluding Space Wolves, Dark Angels, Blood Angels and Black Templars who had their own Codexes). To me at least, something like this seems best; it majorly trims down on bookkeeping and streamlines the experience whilst still allowing a large amount of customization (if not moreso!), and also puts homegrown factions on a level playing field with existing ones.

 

I really miss that codex - I have a lot of fond memories of very tooled up assault squads (utilising two traits every time) sweeping from combat to combat on the way to glorious victory :)

 

That said, it was still a system open to exploitation - the disadvantages generally limited your army selection choices, so you just chose ones that limited things you weren't taking anyway.

 

But yes, it was a good system. Take out the disadvantages, and it's not far removed from the current Guard codex.

[Scribe]

Stream tonight noted "Streamlined" as a big key word.

 

Index hammer incoming?

 

EDIT: So, exciting times. I hope the simplification comes to bear fruit. I'm cautiously optimistic.

 

(Maybe its just the video being properly grim has be riding high...)

Edited March 23, 2023 by Scribe

[Shinespider]

In the interest of the original topic - the speaker was quite clear that subfactions still exist. There's a set of army rules for "Space Marines" and another, separate set for "Ultramarines." What's changed is that Ultramarines is no longer an add-on but a full replacement (albeit one that will likely have a lot of overlap.)

Edited March 23, 2023 by Shinespider

[Cpt_Reaper]

From what was mentioned, it does feel like somehow they have made rules that make everyone happy.

Edited March 23, 2023 by Cpt_Reaper

[Brother Nathan]

there was a fair bit mentioned but they specifically mentioned a different sheet if you decided to play first company... so you may well get even greater degree of army support with extras to support but limiting in rule stacking. 

[jaxom]

14 hours ago, Brother nathan said:

there was a fair bit mentioned but they specifically mentioned a different sheet if you decided to play first company... so you may well get even greater degree of army support with extras to support but limiting in rule stacking. 

One thing I had considered if I every home-brewed up my own codex was having Armies of Reknown for the 1st Company and the Reserve Companies.

[Scribe]

14 hours ago, Cpt_Reaper said:

From what was mentioned, it does feel like somehow they have made rules that make everyone happy.

 

A lot is going to hinge on the way Stratagems are handled, the 'killyness' and recommended matched play points level I think.

 

Pour one out for the FOC though. You served well old friend.