Another thing I'd love to see: reduced threat ranges. The game has become absurdly mobile at this point, to the point that something that can move 10" and therefore has about an 17-18" threat range doesn't even seem particularly fast any more. The amount of armies that *can't* go in hard from T1 is much lower than the number of armies that can. It's just an escalating arms race that has become absurd, and it's to the detriment of the game because it means screening is basically the only way to stay away from something, distance itself is often largely irrelevant.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
This is something we have have been saying for a while, but the designers want the game to be exciting and have big plays in the first round.
@assistantref5084
7 ай бұрын
@@TheStormkeep I question whether anyone actually enjoys that, though. Personally, I like nothing less than spending half an hour setting up for a game only to have it be over in 20 minutes because someone didn't screen perfectly in T1 to avoid having their opponent's hammer cross the entire board to exploit the minute gap on one corner of their castle, which was halfway across the board from said hammer unit at the start of the turn.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
@@assistantref5084 I totally agree. This is something I actually wanted to talk about on the stream... I want more of the strategic gameplay to come from rounds 3-5 instead of being so heavily focused on deployment and the first 2 rounds. Maybe AOS needs to incorporate some kind of army reserves system like in WarCry?
@mattp6953
7 ай бұрын
I also agree with melee range. I would just say anything within 3" can fight.
@tomswelt3689
7 ай бұрын
I only buy the Battletomes for the key for the App, the storys and pictures.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
Chad move
@mattp6953
7 ай бұрын
Double turn is a non issue. I say split the difference and add more reactive stuff and keep it. Make turn 1 also a random roll.
@mattp6953
7 ай бұрын
Or goto... Alternating activations!
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
More reactive gameplay is my preferred solution! Would reduce the mental load of thinking two turns ahead if we had more powerful reactive tools
@mattp6953
7 ай бұрын
Thing is that makes its own complexity. I would prefer if they get rid of it to go to alternating activations of units. I feel the double is the thing that adds dramatic moments to the game and it's not the instawin people thing. You can still blow that 5" charge or roll all 1s and 2s. I'd love to see GW put a major game into alternating activations.
@rotm4447
7 ай бұрын
I think aos players have started to feel elitist about it after it was the argument in the game for the first like 6 years. The period when the game itself was most under attack from outside. Especially when learning how to not lose to it immediately makes you feel skilled, when really all you learned to do was something the system makes necessary to even to be able to play the game at all. Plus the rules allow you to, and incentivize you to make that build based around I'm going to go second, I get the double and then I table you. That still is a viable strategy even at higher levels and a real part of the game that doesn't go away. That's a reality but alot of arguments now are that the priority should be thought of as irrelevant because "the same good players win a lot, so its fine and balanced" instead of what its actually doing to the game itself. How its warping it, what are the actual win rate differences between different priority outcomes etc.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
@@rotm4447 Yeah once you 'master' the concept of double turns they become pretty tedious. Skillful... but tiresome. The game needs skill expression, but maybe there is a better way to do it? This topic certainly seems like a sacred cow to the AOS competitive community... nobody wants to discuss what could possibly replace double turns to create a dynamic battlefield state, because it always devolves back into the same old argument about double turns :P
@kurukblackflame
7 ай бұрын
I like melee range. Never had an argument about it. If players spend a lot of time arguing over this then maybe they take things a bit too seriously? In which case, they'll find something to argue about no matter what the rules are. I like weapons like spears having more reach. It makes sense and having options for different weapon builds makes the game more interesting imo. I hear this one a lot so I felt compelled to comment (sorry for all these comments XD).
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
People take their imaginary plastic soldier battles very seriously ;) 3" Weapons are really really cool, but there are very few multi-model units that have those. Melee range feels like something that exists just to make those units feel special, but you could just replace the whole characteristic with a special rule on those warscrolls that allows them to fight from 3" away instead. Love all the comments my dude, keep 'em coming
@MrDavs1985
7 ай бұрын
1:07:12 no female liberator…. Leena Stormsire is not happy!!!
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
There were a few female Libs added, but I think at the time of 2nd ed release the only one was Angharad Brightshield from the Underworlds warband
@Iybraesil
7 ай бұрын
Knight/Lord-Exterminator. Stormcast finally get a good melee hero xD
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
Lord-Celestants should be scary melee fighters!
@egorseredkin9308
7 ай бұрын
with 1 attack))) 2+ 2+ -1 d20+1))))
@juleksz.5785
7 ай бұрын
No, it must be Knight/lord-Ruinator, that sounds just so much more metal ! Also, Karazai is somehow good at melee :P
@assistantref5084
7 ай бұрын
Another vote for making who takes first turn random (or at very most, a bat/enhancement to let you add or subtract 1 from the roll-off, or maybe even just let you have choice if the roll-off is a tie instead of rerolling). For a game that is so high on randomness that it has the possibility of a double turn, the fact that both players will know with 100% certainty before the first model is deployed who is deciding who goes first is just bizarre, and it leads to a large level of predictability that isn't healthy for the game.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
Agreed! Building a list to go 1st in round 1 and risking the double isnt a problem... The problem is people building lists to force the opponent to go first while they fish for a double turn.
@assistantref5084
7 ай бұрын
@@TheStormkeep And to add insult to injury, the current implementation also means we see far fewer fun things like artefacts than we otherwise would, since it's almost always better just to go lower drop instead. Which heaps boredom on top of predictability.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
@@assistantref5084 For most armies and most players, the cost to benefit ratio of getting more Enhancements is very high compared to having fewer drops... but that could be fixed by having more powerful Enhancements (most artifacts are really bad!) and/or making it require fewer heroes to fill a Warlord battalion.
@cmleibenguth
7 ай бұрын
@@TheStormkeep This is why I actually disagree with making the first turn random and think we should keep the ability to reduce drops It would just be better if they made enhancements better The various special abilities in the GHB battalions and some of the GHB artifacts, or some armies' artifacts, demonstrate that there is a way to encourage people to not just reduce their drops The armies who do not have good enhancements, and who do not benefit much from the GHB enhancements, therefore will always have one way to compete --- they can reduce their drops
@edumh22
7 ай бұрын
I think that fishing for the double turn mechanic is not fun and it defines games by pure luck. It’s very hard to survive some destruction armys with other armys even when you deploy correctly the game it’s just too deadly and many things can just cross the entire battlefield
@markpandelidis2079
7 ай бұрын
Ushoran does not fit wholly within 3" of a crypt guard unit. Distances are measured as 1 measurement 1 way. Anyone playing Ushuran with crypt guard giving him +1 to his ward is cheating. The core rules define wholly within as the model needing every part of it's base to be within the state range of the closest model in the other unit.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
Hmm interesting, I havent heard anyone make that argument before. Can you cite the specific section of the core rules?
@markpandelidis2079
7 ай бұрын
@@TheStormkeep of course, 1.5.1 measuring distances. I believe part of the confusion for some people might be that GW writes models (plural) so some people might mistakenly believe you can measure from all the closest models and say "every part of the base is within range of all these individual models in the unit" but the use of plural models in the sentence is referring to 2 models (plural), 1 from each unit. Measurements are always 1:1 model to model, singular. This is evident when you read the entire section start to finish.
@mohastgridlock
7 ай бұрын
The Kragnos model is one of my favorites. I hope they make a whole centaur race to match. I think base to base or base to base with a friend who is in melee is a good fix. Folks can have special abilities to make it more unique.
@kurukblackflame
7 ай бұрын
Agreed! I don't get the Kragnos hate. He's cool! :D
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
@@kurukblackflame Great model, but it doesn't seem to fit with the rest of the Destruction armies
@laronroberts1462
7 ай бұрын
In the lore Kragnos us currently looking for evidence of his people Skragrott been leading him Astray. I think it was in Dawn Crusade book 2 or 3
@coureurdesbois6754
7 ай бұрын
I don't see range being an issue. Most of the time you don't even need to measure because you already know the size of the bases. They could just replace this with "ranks", but then having small bases wouldn't be as good (i.e.: this unit fights two models deep, or three models deep).
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
It becomes more of an issue with specific base sizes, like 32mm bases. It would be a lot simpler and cleaner if combat required being in base-to-base contact, or base-to-base with another model in your unit that is base-to-base with an enemy. Would require a lot of playtesting and rebalancing units to make it work!
@cmleibenguth
7 ай бұрын
My thoughts: - Refine 3rd Edition, not another revamp - Double turn as is - Hero phase as is, maybe some more reactivity options here - Game complexity is fine, just have a better neutral battlepack in the main rulebook that is easier to grasp -- and incentivize tournaments to use it occasionally My only alternative to this is to do what 40k does with the Battleforces in a box --- make that a form of gameplay, where yes everything in the box is set in a certain way, but it's balanced against all the other battle forces --- allows for a more approachable, fast game (speaking of which) - Duration has only been bad for me in Nurgle vs Nurgle slap fights, where you have two very high survivability, relatively low damage armies hitting each other --- games that are "too short" are rare (sounds more like a tournament goer problem if they get alpha struck) - Melee Range is fine overall, but the Galletian Veteran fight within 1/2" thing should be made a core mechanic for more units or through battalions (not necessarily everyone) - Wholly within is fine, it can be annoying but the tradeoff is what it was meant to prevent from earlier editions which was worse - Mortal Wound output is too high and a lot of units deal mortal wounds when they should not and/or in ways they should not, all in the name of "speeding up gameplay" (e.g. 2.0 SBG Zombies vs 3.0 SBG Zombies, the former was fine the new version is not; Khorne doing mortal wounds on death rather than fighting on death) - Bravery really relates to Battleshock at the end of the day and then a few spells here or there --- I think Battleshock should potentially work as it does in 10th WH40k (given how much I dislike 10th 40k, I am surprised to say that -- their revamp of battleshock is one of the few good things imo), and abilities that target bravery need to be standardized as forms of Battleshock tests (even if out of normal sequence from the Morale phase) -- that way abilities that boost or even prevent Battleshock have more weight - I don't mind abilities requiring a roll to activate, unless they are only 1/game. Any ability that is 1/game should work automatically. It's limitation is the 1/game part. Abilities that are not 1/game can potentially have an activation roll depending on how powerful they are. - What this GHB has taught me about magic is just that the core spell lore offering needs a revamp to make it attractive and that there are a lot of armies (such as SCE...) who have limited or even bad spell lores --- as for primal dice as a mechanic... seasonal is fine, but as a permanent stay, I'm not sure. What I do NOT want is for them to do to the AoS magic phase what they did to the WH40k Psychic Phase for 10th --- that's something I absolutely hate about 10th 40k oh --- and one last thing on magic --- if they are willing to revamp the generic endless spells periodically throughout an edition, then they should do so for faction specific endless spells. SCE Meteor is dramatically overcosted for what it does. Overall worse in 3.0 than its 2.0 incarnation, if you ask me, too expensive, and comparably costed generic Endless Spells do WAY WAY more for their cost (Purple Sun, even without the model eating mechanic) - Prayers.... my only suggestion is to add an artifact called "Prayer Beads" that acts as the priest equivalent of an arcane tome --- makes the person a priest and lets them interact in a limited capacity in that dimension (so long as they aren't already a priest or wizard) - Bodyguards should only work for foot heroes --- barring a VERY limited number of special cases such as Hearthguard w/ Runefather. I would rather Krondys, for instance, just be given a 5++ vs Mortal Wounds and that Praetors can only bodyguard Lord Celestant on foot, Lord Relictor on foot, etc. As for look out, sir, returning, I'm okay with it coming back so long as we get Galletian Sharpshooters coming back as well --- whether as a battalion or as a limited number of units being able to ignore Look Out, sir. Mortal wounds on 6's are fine, I just think too many units can do it and is part of the mortal wound bloat in the game I'm okay with Auras and Pulses, it just took them a VERY long time to clarify the language on it. But now that they have, they just need to make sure to keep that language going forward. - As for bringing back warscroll battalions in general? No. I think the way the GHB's have handled it is better, it's just that some of the ones that have come from 3.0's GHB's should be kept and added to the main rulebook (Galley Vets, Galley Sharpshooters) - I like the system for Battle Tactics and Grand Strategies, I would just like it iterated upon. Furthermore, I would like faction specific Tactics to either be more universally doable for that faction (some factions have better BT's than others) or should only be available outside of Matched Play --- I was okay with Gargants getting some specials here due to the unique skew nature of the army, but not everyone - So long as they are iterating upon 3.0, rather than a total revamp, an Index is not necessary imo --- just a 4.0 online Battlescroll update of points and any relevant language on abilities However, if 4.0 is a total revamp, then yes, an Index is a must - Enhancements across armies need to be more consistent (for instance, most armies just get their Monstrous rampages but for SCE it is an enhancement) Also, they need to be iterated upon. SCE, as one of the first Battletomes, got a lot more cut from its 2.0 incarnation and overly simplified, especially as the edition went on and designers got their stride for the armies that followed. Now, iterate again with lessons learned to make the army and general enhancements better (another example would be the Amulet of Destiny, where it's obvious now that I was correct all along and that the 5++ ward was fine, changing it to a 6++ just made it unusable, and at worst needed only language to make it unusable by Gargants ). - As for points ---- well, it really depends on the iteration vs revamp mentioned earlier on what to do here. Maybe they need increasing, maybe they don't. *shrug* - I think they need to rethink Reinforcements and how to incentive vs disincentivize it based on the army, but beyond the incentives it's not a bad mechanic
@cmleibenguth
7 ай бұрын
As for things I would like: - More 2.0 SCE artifacts coming back and the current 3.0 ones being updated to be useful - Knight Arcanum's anti-endless spell aura getting an iteration for having a wider range and preventing endless spells from even being setup within that denial range --- makes her more of a real alternative to the incantor --- the incantor can guarantee counter 1 spell every game, while the Arcanum can create a guaranteed denial area against Endless Spells for the entire game - When pruning SCE, be more careful than the 2.0 to 3.0 transition where, in my opinion, too much was pruned including several useful mechanics (it wasn't just stupid stuff that was pruned --- e.g. the Knight Heraldor lost his ability to let an SCE unit run and charge -- at worst it only needed language to say it only works on infantry if you didn't want it synergizing with Fulminators or SDG) - Holy Commands do not require command points anymore, despite the name "command" and are not stopped by Roar --- I don't like how easy it is to counter what's supposed to be our 1/game army specific unique resource / buff - Rend-2 on more of our melee heroes (Vandus, Lord Celestant on Foot, Knight-Questor) - If they are going to add heroes, please just add more KNIGHT heroes -- we have a lot of Lord heroes already --- Knight-Castellants for instance --- can be made parts of units (like the Soulsworn Relictor) instead of separate warscrolls - Please give the Celestant-Prime and Yndrasta the Lord keyword - Potentially have the Lord Arcanum's ability to stop units from dying work more like a mini-Yndrasta where they can bring back a model who has died -- makes it more consistent across the army and is less of a headache to deal with --- can also modify the Gryphcharger spell to enable healing or to raise models as well (with a similar limit that the rez only works on low wound models while the healing can work on any SCE model, with excess healing being lost) - Iterate on the Knight-Venator so that there is a real choice between them and the Knight-Judicator - Big Dragons get a 5+ vs mortal wounds - Praetors can only bodyguard foot heroes. Perhaps also act like a CHaos Lord's warband and can fight alongside said heroes. - Lord Aquilor's "Celestial Hurricane" ability goes back to 2.0 version where he can teleport a Vanguard unit with him when he rides the winds Aethyric - Speaking of which, I liked the change of Riding the Winds going into 3.0 where they can just teleport -- keep it that way (the random distance thing being gone is nice) From there, it depends on if they are pruning units / combining war scrolls - Sequitors, Vindictors, Liberators, Vanquishers just combined into one scroll -- Redeemer -- either wielding great weapons or a shield and handweapon -- 3+ save with shield, 4+ otherwise - Castigators and Hurricane Raptors folded into Crossbow Judicators - Bow Judicators, Vigilors, and Longstrikes folded into a single unit - Retributors and Grandhammers folded into a single unit - Decimators can leave - Regular annihilators and Protectors folded into a single unit (.... but with the current Protector's Warscroll whcih is just better) - Dracothian Guard come in two flavors -- Fulminators or Tempestors --- essentially the other two just have the same stats as Fulminators -- the axes vs hammers vs lances now is just aesthetic preference - Not all Knight characters need to leave, some can just join units like super sergeants (not unlike Soulsworn Relictor in Questor Soulsworn) with the same stat line, but only 1 unit per army can have said super sergeant, and it provides a unique buff --- some can stay as separate scrolls - Incantor and ARcanum are kept SEPARATE -- they offer different things - Given that most of the named heroes and warbands are from a specific Stormhost, perhaps the lionshare of them should be relegated to a supplement (they don't have to be outright squatted, per se)
@cmleibenguth
7 ай бұрын
As for lore predictions - Yes I think we're going to Ulgu We'll most likely stay there most of the edition, if not all Crone lady is opening the door to the Umbraneth finally releasing (Malerion's been around since 1.0 ... doing ... something?) I think when Malerion comes out, they'll release the Tyrion factions of Lumineth around the same time We might get a new Shadow Incarnate (in general, I don't think they are abandoning the Incarnate idea even if we don't get a Shadow Incarnate in 4.0, so much as likely rethinking/iterating how they want to do it before introducing a new one) The only miss lorewise, for me anyway, for 3.0 was Kragnos' model The idea of the character, as this avatar of destruction, is sound -- just not the design...much more of a beast of chaos vibe Otherwise, the lore for Realm of Beasts was good (Full disclosure: I had a very low bar set for the Realm of Beasts, thus most of the lore being even average would exceed my expectations and leave a good feeling)
@derekbrothers4674
7 ай бұрын
I think the double turn shouldn't happen on turn 2. turn 3, 4, and 5 is fine for it to happen.
@Ignatiusofantioch87
7 ай бұрын
As to the commentary on NMM early in the pod, it definitely is something you just need to try to do. First time I tried it was on Lion El’Jonson and I messed up a few times but I would just go back over and fix it. It takes time but the juice is worth the squeeze for your more special models especially.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
Got any good video guides for beginners? I'll have to find some spare models to fail at NMM and then hide them in the closet
@Ignatiusofantioch87
7 ай бұрын
@@TheStormkeep Don Suratos is where I learned NMM gold iirc. His video has a lot of good tips on picking colors. For example, even though gold is warm, he added a bright teal into one of his more final mixes to add some cold contrast. You can do almost any color metal after that tutorial because NMM really is about color choice, contrast and light.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
@@Ignatiusofantioch87 Thanks, I'll check it out!
@kurukblackflame
7 ай бұрын
1:20:00 I've played a lot of games and I've watched a lot of games and my opinion of the double turn remains the same. It's bad and it makes the game less fun. I doubt it'll go away, but hopefully they'll add in more reactive stuff-Just so the player who's been doubled actually gets to do some decision making while they otherwise stand about and watch for the best part of an hour.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
More reactive gameplay is my preferred solution! Commands, Heroic Actions, and Rampages all feel good to use defensively.
@Onk3lM0
7 ай бұрын
@@TheStormkeep I also disagree that the double turn is only game-winningly strong for casual games. Look at youtube channels like the Seasons of War battle reports. Those guys attend tournaments and they STILL get caught in the open by the double turn. They have a good chunk of videos that are "only" 30mins long because someone got the double and just steamrolled their opponent. The simple fact that this scenario exist makes the double turn a bad mechanic in my eyes. I also strongly dislike the argument that you just need to develop skill and to plan ahead. 90%+ of players are CASUAL players that never attend a tournament and maybe get to play a game once a month. In my city we have the largest local tabletop club of northern Germany with close to 80 members and let me tell you, most of them have kids and/or families and they just don't have the time to play that often. For most of us, the double turn is likely game definingly strong, especially if you play a shooting or magic list that can apply its damage once again, without the "I go, you go" that melee fights dictate.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
@@Onk3lM0 Yeah that's one of the better arguments against the double turn... if you need to develop a skill that 90%+ players will never learn in order to justify a divisive game mechanic, doesn't that make it a bad game mechanic?
@Onk3lM0
7 ай бұрын
@@TheStormkeep Thank you for acknowledging this! I often feel like the whole discussion is largely shaped by and for tournament players and the perspective of casual players - which are the vast majority mind you - is seldomly heard or quickly disgarded. Another hot take: Balancing only around tournament data is stupid. From a purely mathematical perspective it means that you take a look at a tiny substrata of all the games and then again zoom in further at the top percent of players. I would like it if GW broadens its "research". Do surveys, talk to the people that are playing in the GW stores and so on. I know this won't happen because it requires more work and workers but it's a nice dream.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
@@Onk3lM0 Random priority order seems to work better in smaller scale games - or at least less lethal games - like WarCry and Underworlds.
@TheDavethepally
7 ай бұрын
I agree I hate having to roll a 2+ or 3+ to activate an ability. Especially when the best ability in the game is automatic and that’s the war chanters plus one damage.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
Imagine if the Warchanter had to roll a 2+ to buff units with +1 damage... Terrible feeling
@TheDavethepally
7 ай бұрын
@@TheStormkeep IJ players would sob
@markpandelidis2079
7 ай бұрын
The difference that people don't talk about enough is combat activations. The priority system in AOS ONLY works because of how combat works. THAT'S specifically why the KO double doesn't work and skews the game. There's almost no reaction to shooting available and there's no you go I go. It's just their whole army unloads their damage over 2 turns back to back and wipes out your army. So there's a space they need to work on. More counter play to specifically long range shooting. The other thing is the benefit for going second needs to be more impactful, START on round 2 and force priority winner to have to think about what makes more sense. Lines of communication, the impact isn't great enough. 1 additional command point isn't impactful enough, Choosing the pulse only turn 2 isn't impactful. Picking the active objectives on power flux isn't impactful. The other maps have zero benefits to going second. So that REALLY needs to be the main focus of 4th IMO
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
Totally agreed, bonuses for going 2nd in a round should not apply to Round 1. At least not right now when the game is so heavily focused on deployment and the first 2 rounds. Feels really good to have control over the pulse location on Geomantic Pulse, or back in the first season of 3rd edition when you could destroy an objective in round 3+.
@johnymiller7245
7 ай бұрын
Something I find amazing is that everyone thinks that we will keep having a GHB, yet if we look over to our cousin 40K they don’t have the Chapter Approved anymore, will it translate into AoS?
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
Didn't know that they scrapped CA - I don't follow 40k closely enough. Did they explicitly state there is no more CA? Or have we just not seen one yet? GHB is an annual summer release, so maybe we will see a CA this summer?
@cmleibenguth
7 ай бұрын
@@TheStormkeep We just haven't seen one yet
@johnymiller7245
7 ай бұрын
@@TheStormkeepI must admit that I don't know, it could return some day. However they normally would have release one shortly after the release of 10th.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
@@johnymiller7245 Maybe the indexes at the start of the edition made a CA release unnecessary last year?
@johnymiller7245
7 ай бұрын
@@TheStormkeep We will be fixed soon as summer is comming !
@MultiDownforce
7 ай бұрын
I say do battleshock instead, i hate not being able to play with my toys because they ran away 😢
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
Battleshock serves a useful role as an anti-horde mechanic, but it frequently feels either too punishing or too weak.
@DJMexiMelt
6 ай бұрын
That skaven symbol = Mickey Mouse Clubhouse
@CartoreAOS
7 ай бұрын
I play this game over 40k because i like the double turn. If you take it away the game becomes much simpler and the meta will probably become stale.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
Do you like the double turn mechanic or do you like the dynamic battlefield state that it creates? Do you think there could be other ways to achieve that same feeling without giving one player such a huge power spike?
@darkjack164
7 ай бұрын
here me out, you have a armour save and a willpower save. so mortal wounds would be vs the willpower save. then just get rid of ward saves. have demons only use willpower saves vs everything
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
Mortal wounds come in different flavors. Sometimes they are poison, and sometimes they are magical bolts of lightning. Would it make sense to have Willpower be used against a poisoned arrow?
@brandonjramos
6 ай бұрын
Wow, I hope he didn’t hurt his back, carrying the deadweight of his cohost through this podcast. I don’t think I’ve ever seen someone contribute so little to a conversation my entire life.
@LSOP-
7 ай бұрын
I hope it gets end times'ed and you guys come play a real game with real lore like the old world.
@TheStormkeep
7 ай бұрын
I don't think anything could be funnier than if GW did another End Times out of nowhere
Пікірлер: 73