I will start with the last first, and then move on to the intelligent conversation.

Morgan I plan on moving it to e-mail I was only responding to what I felt was an unwarrented attack I plan to take it no further here.

Replacement/Not A Replacement Statement...........................Reply
Never implied it was, nor said you were doing any different. Who knows you may just be on to something nobody else has thought of, why not, my list is no more special then yours or anybody elses. Doesn't prevent me from asking if you may want to try a combined effort, and in point of fact when epilgrim and myself put up our revised lists your comments and suggestions will be most welcome (And accepted without a bashing fest really)

Too many special rules ......................................Reply
I have felt, and have always felt, that for Epic-A ALL armies should use a minimum of army wide or army affected special rules. My Squat list started with four was reduced to two, and now has One. Chaos still could do with a paring down, espcially the rules for Daemons. My vote was to buy them as formations and then have them start on the board or teleport in, within a certain distance of a Chaos formation. Simple, clean, easy. I was overruled and accepted that without a wimper. If it were really left up to me the max would be set at two. (Please note the armywide/army affected comment)

I am not even vindicated from writing overly complex special rules, my own for the Hellfury Cannon were a long standing joke to me because I just couldn't think of anything else. That was, until someone else offered me a much better solution (Thank You Steve) which accomplished the same results and in a very simple manner.

My feeling is still that you are attempting to use too may special rules, and that the ones you have could be simplified and still achieve the results you desire. At the moment I have no good ideas, and I wish I did have some to offer you.

Formations Sizes................................................Reply
The first list follwed the old Titanticus Squats, almost to the letter, (Including a movement of 10cms) but we kept running into problems. At that point we could either have come up with some special rules to make it work or diverge from the old Titanticus organization, we chose to diverge as little as possible. Face it Epic-A is a not the same as Titanticus, some formations need to be changed, second, and more importantly, the Titanticus list was an all encompassing Squat list for all Squats, Epic-A uses a far different system of specific army lists within each race. Difference therefore is almost mandatory.

On the 10cm movement for a moment......We tried and tried to make this work without adding any special rules, and experienced players kept (rightfully) exploiting it. For example an Ork Big Warband has an Assault FF strike range of 30cms (15cm move 15cm range), the Squats with a 10cm move have an Assault FF strike range of 25cms (10cm move 15cm range). This put the Squats in the unhappy position of being within attack range of an enemy while they could not attack them from the same range.

(Please do not site me an example that fast attack formations can do it all the time, I know they can. The difference here is that we are talking about the Grunt Combat formations of each army with one being put at a big disavantage.)

This difference becomes more pronounced when the battle lines start to fall apart, even on defense, later in a battle. Normal infantry can double 30cms and triple 45cms while Squat infantry can double 20cms and 30cms. This allowed skilled opponents to put them out of position constantly in the third and fourth turns of a battle.

My advice is to use a 15cm base move.

Alternative List..........................................Reply
Already answered in replacement/not a replacemnt list above. Just to add where did I say you couldn't do what you wanted? Again an offer to join a combined effort IS not a demand you end your efforts or stop what you are doing. Am I missing something here, when is an offer a demand for something else to occur?

The overall feel you want for your list..........................Reply
Is just fine, and nobody, even me, said you couldn't. I will probably not be posting here anymore as it seems my opinions are not welcome. I was going to try and help you avoid some of the pitfalls and hurtles we already crossed, but it may now not be worth the effort as my words keep getting twisted into something I didn't say. I really am already getting tired of responding to things I never said. However I always finish a reply once I have started it.

Stewardship of list......................................Reply
Huh, where did I say anything like that! Even the quote from me talks about the list and orgainization just where in the world does the quote you pasted say anything like your reply to it?

In any case, I am talking specifically about the number of units in formations used in the old Titanticus System, NOT they way in which an army was put together. Thus making far easier for those old Titanticus players to field an army with a minimum of modification to their exsisting collections.
(For example the Spartan is a Rhino thus allowing old Titanticus players to use their Rhino models. Most old Titanticus players that emailed me wanted to 'get away' from using Imperial names for Squat vehicles, so I did it. A second Squat List I have includes Land Raiders with a different name a stats just a bit different then Imperial Land Raiders)

Unfond memories of the old Titanticus list...........................Reply
Yes the old Titanticus Squats were a bit on the firepower heavy side and it was a BIG weakness of the old Squat Army List of that day. I believe what I posted above covers what I was referrng to as to using the old Titanticus organization. The way the old list put an army together, combined with the overall slow speed of the Squat Army, forced them to be played that way. No way I want to go back to that, ever.

My two cents (And please don't add to my words)................................
I would drop the idea of a 10cm movement, but if you don't believe me then purposely exploit it in a couple of games (Without any special rules to compensate for this lack of speed). You will quickly see the Squat Army slipping back into the Titanticus Defense of Guns first maneuver last you and your friends so hated (And rightfully so). Try the army with a 15cm base move and it becomes more enjoyable to use because it can keep up.

I would par down the army special rules to two at most, and I would make them as simple as possible. Simple rules cause far less confusion and are very hard for game lawyers to exploit. For the Squats a rule for their resolute nature could be as simple as allowing them a +1 to Rally Rolls allowing them to stay together better then everyone else. Or maybe even better saying they are initiative +1 when they make Rally attempts, ignoring their normal initiative rating and get a +1 when attempting to Rally from broken status.

I really do hope this lets you see what I mean, Morgan, on special rules and the old/new orgainization. oh and on the 10cm/15cm movement.

Disclaimer
These are only suggestion meant to help you further work on the list you are working on and are in no way an attempt to slow down your progress or hijack your list or even yourself ;-)

Jaldon

I now a dead parrot when I see one and I am looking at one now.

Observations from playtests:

10cm MV

The fact that there is only one weapon that reaches across the board, and the need to win games via objectives ensures that the Dvergatal have to move forward.

In the games that I have played with them, you cannot sit back and shoot as may be suggested (or one in our playgroup believes due to older Epic additions). You just cannot win that way. You need to make use of pre-game setups, scouts, bikes, vehicles, and War Engines to gain movement within the force and this is the beauty of this list - it encourages the all-round balanced force.

Taking a back line defence will only see you contesting a Blitz and maybe DtF. It does not allow the Dvergatal to win or draw any other way. So then you have to move forward. Any increase in the move will be a boon (no objection there) yet it will also take away the flavour and drawback of the Dvergatal for an opponent to exploit. The game is not about making a power list, but rather managing the drawbacks (which every force has). Whilst a good general may take advantage of the Dvergatal lack of movement, a clever general will in turn make the most out of his options to either combat those deficiencies, or take advantage of an opponents weaknesses.

Playing this list with a 10cm MV used to be frustrating (probably because I like assaults). After a few games I started to apprciate the challenge of the restriction and devise different ways to play. The initial test and 're-think' I believe gave me an appreciation for another playstyle altogether.

After playing (with/against) the Dvergatal at 10cm, I like it and think it is fluffy. I would not like to play Dvergatal with 15cm MV as I could just play IMP guard (or a variation of) to have the same game.

Further comments as I have time to do them

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I apologise for any confusion if I misinterpreted. I took the last two paragraphs of your post to be "There should only be one list, and it should be based on established stuff (ie, Demiurg)." Upon looking closer, no, you didn't say that, though there's a couple of broken sentences that I should have sought clarification on.


I've only got the Demiurg v3 to go on, but it has one global rule, a technology rule (Tunnelers), and six unit specific rules. Mole Mortars Indirect special, Goliath/Thunderfire activation special, Particle Shielding for the MCF's, Iron Eagle Spotter for Colossus, Power Flux for Cyclops, and the three specials for the Land Train.

My list has the one global rule, one technology rule, and Spotter/Seeker (expanded to hopefully give it more integrated usage), Lance and Piercing Shot (neither listed, but should be), and Support Craft (which I wouldn't be suprised to see the Demiurg list adopt). Of the other three, Support and Linking could be moved to the points list, but were front loaded due to personal preference, and they initially didn't fit. And putting Transport up front just meant saving a lot of space in the stat lists, just repeating the same information over and over. So when a complaint of "too many special rules" is raised, I wonder if people are actually reading them.

Again, I'll reiterate I can only go off the lists I have, and the latest list I was able to find, was Demiurg v3. I tried looking through the Consolidated Squat Lists thread, and Demiurg v4.0, but the forum crash earlier this year has turned those threads into dog's breakfasts. You'ld be in good stead restarting one of those and putting up an old version if the current one isn't ready for release.


I accept it's not a demand. But to join the existing list means accepting the 15cm move. I didn't do this on a whim. I read through as many threads as I could before I even started mine. The one thing that was abundantly clear, was that 15cm was immutable, that the developers had determined that 10cm had been proven ineffective, and that arguments had already been heard, for and against. Which is fine from a developmental perspective, you don't want to rehash the same argument every time someone else suggests it. I wasn't (and am yet to be) convinced, but didn't see a point spending months arguing for it, when I could spend those months developing a list independently.


I'm not sure of your meaning here. I'd renamed a couple of things to hopefully avoid confusion, as you did, renaming the Spartan. I apparently botched that. But everything in the list, with the exception of the Gorgon and Spartan, exist as models that people had in previous Squat lists. The Gorgon, because I wanted a list that used figures I owned that can't be used elsewhere and could easily be subbed for Squat LandRaiders, and the Spartan because it looked like a cool smaller transport. Are you saying that the older playerbase don't like the Spartan?


I have tried them at 15cm. I've played almost all the published lists (the French Squat one being the only exception), and they all felt operationally, too fast, and not "Squatlike". I have tried to exploit it during playtests, as I wasn't the only one playing the Squat side. I actually played more games in opposition than with. I haven't found the movement to cause them to be too defensive, and a lack of significant range advantage has forced MORE mobility in those games, than less.

This argument does seem kind of circular. I should drop the idea of 10cm, even though I find 15cm is too fast, and not Squat enough, because others have deemed 10cm untenable, though I've found no issue with it.


I initially did consider something similar. But found the idea contrary to the idea of Squat stubborness. A modifier on rally rolls indicates the ability to recover from being rattled to the core. Squats, in my opinion, should not GET broken as easily. As it stands, a broken formation simply cannot hold it's ground without fearless. A Squat formation should be resilient to running in the first place.

The only existing mechanic that would allow that, has to do with how BM's are gained, or BM's are counted. As reducing how BM's are gained was something I hated about the all Expendable Tyranids, and the limited ways I could apply this, lead to me working on how to deal with them being counted. ATSKNF covers that, but I didn't even consider using that, as it both should remain the provisio of Marines, and would be fairly costly. Playing around with the ratios was out of the question too (in my experience, people hate math), so saying Squats only count 3/4 of the BM's for ATSKNF wouldn't work either. Making it a simple subtraction let it fit.

The last part about Resolute, the mod to Initiative, was because of the IG-esque feel. Splashing around single BM's to cause activation disruption is a classic tactic against any Initiative 2 army. Again, it didn't fit with my image of how Squats react to incoming fire, and so I changed it. It also allowed me to make the major War Engines Initiative 2, as a single potshot is unlikely to cause a penalty to it's activation. And making the War Engines usable, AND Initiative 2 was another big part. I'm definately not a fan of mixed formations, and I wanted the ability to make a version of the old Ironbreaker formation.


But then the list has absolutely no resemblence to what _I_ want to see in a Squat list, and becomes no different to the existing lists. I am not disputing the work that's already gone into the lists pushing towards completion. The team you are working with obviously has both a specific vision of what you want to see, and your own opinions as to what does and doesn't work. You've almost completed your orange. I don't want an orange, I want an apple. Suggesting to me you've tried apples, and that I really want an orange, doesn't stop me still wanting an apple. I'm open to discussion about what kind of apple, I just don't want an orange.

Morgan Vening

After a brief once-over, I can say this list addresses several of the concerns I had with the Demiurg 4.0 list (tracked WE w/ 4+ CC, Skimmer Overlords, costing issues, and some others), and one of my friends is planning on playing it Thursday. We will provide feedback as we can.

What is Piercing Shot?

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.

Thank You Morgan for the excellent response, I really never thought you just threw the list together. (My own comment here) not impling anything just an observation from reading your list.

The one that is still my bug-a-boo is special rules and I will put my head, and my friends heads, together to see if we can come up with an alternative that fits the vision you have (Now that I fully understand it,that is your vision)

I am still shaky on the 10cm move and advise you to really try to take advantage of it, as I have seen done a large number of times before. Again you may be on to something so I am definitely NOT telling you to stop using it. I am saying be aware that in Epic-A it can be exploited effectively by cunning and shrewed opponents so look for it.

All the best (really) and don't count yourself out because you may be on to something none of us have tought of before and with a little tweeking and input you could be a rising Squat Star without wanting to be, just teasing really.

I know a dead parrot when I see one and I am looking at one right now

Piercing Shot is an homage, a tribute if you will (ie, stolen in it's entirety) to the Penetrating Shot from the French List. I have been meaning to change the name, for consistency, but each time I remember to do so, I forget before I do. Changing the master document now.



It's fairly rare in my list, less so than the French list, but the severe reduction in MW Barrage Doomsday Cannons required some form of "anti-RA" ability. If the French list didn't exist, I probably just would have gone with Lance (math is almost the same), but it felt like a good inclusion. I have been considering dropping Lance from the units that have it, and making PS the standard for that kind of weapon, but it never felt right. And would have required some rebalancing.

Look forward to hearing of your game.

Morgan Vening

Resolute
Rule: Squat Formations are always treated as if they have one less Blast Marker then they actually do, the only exception being Assault Resolution. In Assault Resolution a Squat Formation with a single Blast Marker on it cannot claim the bonus for having No Blast Markers.

(Written this way it accomplishes everything what you have written does. It does give the Squats a nudge in that they DO get the bonus for having fewer Blast Markers then its opponent IF that opponent has one Blast Marker, just not the bonus for No Blast Markers.)

Supports
I would move this out of the Special Rules category and put it right at the top of the Guild List, something like this.

Devegatal Confederation Guilds
Each Guild Formation gets a number of Support points proportional to its size. These points may be spent on the Support Formations, but no more {Points?} can be spent on Support Formations, than are gained from Guilds. These support formations ARE NOT attached to the Guild Formation, but are independent formations except that Hellbores and Leviathans MAY be attached to a Guild Formation
[List follows from this point down]

(This gets It out of the special rules category, where it doesn’t really belong, and makes it very clear exactly what formations it is talking about, how they may be purchased, and fielded. It also removes the linking Special Rule.)

Transports
I would put this with the transport unit on the unit data sheet to make it very clear which transport unit can do what. I have tried to simplify it before doing what you have already done and had rules lawyers twist it.

Spotter/Seeker
Keep it as a Special Rule and I do not think I can improve on what you have written it is very clear and concise. My only disagreement with it is that the spotters are not linked to a specific formation, as in the old Titanticus list. My reasoning is that it looks as if it could be abused enough to create the same’ blast em all while we watch’ type of Squat list. I am going to have to look deeper into this one to see if I am wrong (Good reason for me to play a game and try to break the list!)

Tunnellers
This is pretty much the same rule that epilgrim and I have been using for some time. We don’t really like it, but haven’t been able to come up with anything that makes us happy or works better. The only suggestion I have to offer is to maybe try, “Turn 1 anywhere in the friendly table half. Turn 2 anywhere in the friendly table half and the enemy table half NOT within 30cms of the enemy table edge. Turn 3 anywhere on the table.” This would be a lot less restricted by the placement of the enemies Blitz Objective, which a power player could use to his advantage.





Support Craft
If I am not missing something the only unit that uses this rule is the Overlord Armored Airship. So maybe write something like this in the Overlords notes line………………”An Overlord is always treated as if it were a popped up skimmer so it doesn’t block line of sight, always Fire Fights in assaults, and cannot be used as cover by infantry type units.”
The transport rule is kinda pointless as the Overlord doesn’t have a transport capacity. Or maybe I am missing something.

On to the Army list……………………………………………

Devergatal Confederation Guilds
They all contain a ‘Lord Upgrade’ which in theory would allow me to apply the upgrade to any unit in the formation, thus Thunderers, Transports, Robots, Leviathan, Gorgon, Spartan, Hellbore etc….This would therefore allow me to add any of the other characters (Living Ancestor, Warlord, Grand Warlord) to any of the above, and more. . Is this your intent? Not for or against it just want to know.

Two Robots in support of a formation of eight units will work but a formation of 12 or 16 they are pretty much pointless to field (Can’t really form an effective trip wire shield). You may want to consider increasing it to up to four Robots. The same suggestion applies to the Thunderers you may want to consider increasing the number available for bigger formations. Just a thought here.

Overall you have got to decide if you are going to call them ‘Guilds’ or ‘Brotherhoods’ because right now you mix the two without realizing the confusion it IS creating. For example the Gorgon stat line says ‘no more then is required to transport the Brotherhood yet your list contains NO Brotherhoods.

Well I hope these suggestions help and I am gonna give it a try this weekend, basically I am going to try and break the list and power play it, while Rich is gonna work on exploiting that 10cm move like he once did before. Gonna have to see what happens.

All the best,
Jaldon

I know a dead parrot when I see one and I am looking at one right now

The Support rule was the one area that I also advised is a little hard for people to initially get their head around.

This idea I believe is the way to go. It still reads a little long (if that makes sense). I think it is the word 'but' that does it, as normally the word excludes anything previous to it - it's just the way our brains work I'm afraid. A full stop before the 'but' and begin with "No more points...." would help alleviate this problem.

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

I believe I do understand what Morgan means in the rule, and it did take me a few minutes to figure it out, but I think it should to be re-written for even better clatrity.

Just don't have an alternative idea right off the top of my head.

Having worked with not one but two major Squat list developers (Jaldon and ePilgrim) and having a lot of time already invested in a supplement involving Squats, here is what I think should be done:

Let this list develop on its own. Either it will be worse, better, or different than what is out there. Most likely it will have elements that fit all those descriptions. Since this is all open source, I am going to encourage the lists we have in the supplement to STEAL the best ideas out there so we get the best lists in the supplement and there is no better breeding ground for innovation than competition. Let's see how this new list plays.

As for movement, I don't know why you don't just split the difference, go with a 12cm move, and be done with it.

Special Rules: the guideline should be four special rules as an upper limit. But that is all it is: a guideline. We created ten special rules for the Dark Eldar, pared them to six, then again to four. It was sad watching them go but they had to. In the end I included them in Raiders 2.0 as Optional but never felt remorse in streamlining the list. The same thing goes for this list. It is in development so I expect it to have a lot of special rules. As long as the developer recognizes that somethings should probably be snipped, the list is moving in the right direction.

The biggest problem there, is for the same reason that Space Marines don't say "treated as if they have half (round down) the Blast Markers", and instead list the bullet points. A formation without a Leader (including all the War Engines) would never be able to remove the last BM. "Ok, I can to remove half. But according to the Resolute Rule, I have none.". To have it count differently, would constitute another exception.

And for those who didn't notice, the one element where Resolute currently does not copy ATSKNF isn't a bug, it's a feature. That being Space Marines that Rally come back with twice as many BM's as a normal formation. Squats do NOT come back with 1 more BM than a normal formation.


I'll probably end up doing that, but it doesn't change the fact that it IS a special rule, as it is in other lists, and that it's location within the rules is purely aesthetic. And that I don't like the current format. By front loading it, I hoped to avoid any issue like the original Ork list, where some rules like the restriction on Aircraft/Gargants is hard to see, and their version of Linking isn't in the best place.


I'm curious to see how. The problem with putting it onto the data sheet, besides the extra bookkeeping for no real gain, was that it then has all sorts of run-on effects. Witness the "Counts as Tacticals for Transport Purposes" that some units need to get to be able to function. Originally, it didn't even list the units, and just said "Infantry units without Mounted", but due to wanting Hearthguard to take up two slots, I had to do it that way.


It's possible that it's abusable. But I tried (and I mean really tried), and almost without fail, I was unable to. Due to the relatively high cost of core units, and the premium on Support Points, getting more than 2 Colossus/Cyclops/Land Trains, and sufficient Spotters, while still maintaining a good activation count, isn't easy. Spotters can be purchased three ways. As part of an Iron Eagle formation (costing Support Points), as part of a Colossus (easily targetable), or as part of an Artillery Guild (easily hidden from/targetable if you have sufficient terrain). Also, to use the Seeker rule, you have to remain stationary (Indirect still requires a Sustained Fire action). Staying immobile, even for a turn, and not firing any other weapons (because to do so requires LOS, and well, then Spotter isn't really doing much) is a big downside in this list.

One of the later playtests I did, had 2 Colossus, 1 Cyclops, and a Leviathan. My opponent was hesitant. He then proceeded to smack me around by blitzing the linked Leviathan formation, punishing the three core formations I had, and all but ignoring the MBF's. He won 3-1, able to outmaneuver me on Turn 3, taking it to turn 4, and breaking the blitz guard. Only having three activations in the last two turns was harsh.


Again, curious as to how it could be abused. I'm not saying it can't, but it's also why I put the initial disclaimer in the first post regarding no challenge to an official list. While my list is IMO relatively robust, I don't have the time or energy to devote to making it 'indestructible' for Tournament consideration. Though I'll obviously look at issues that have balance concerns.


It's been adopted as a 'standard' ability by the Tau (and Chaos Squat) lists. And could conceivably be added to other armies. I was just adopting that standard. In much the same way as I could have made a special rule for Graviton Weapons that allow them to ignore Reinforced Armour. Just making it Lance accomplished the same effect, and was simpler for other people to get their heads around.



I didn't see it as a big enough issue to warrant a Chaos-esque special rule. The only truly problematic concern was adding them to a Leviathan, and on a formation that's costing 650+ pts, I don't have a big issue with it. You could do almost the same in Legion of the Damned (Stigmatus + Daemon Prince inside Plague Tower = 575pts). Most of the other potentially abusable problems, on closer look, aren't. Gorgons/Hellbores don't stack Reinforced. Spartan isn't much. The Robot issue is a potentially a big problem though. From a thematic perspective, it blows. I'm not sure it's a HUGE balance issue though. Fearless often-untransportable Daemon Princes for 50pts aren't. But the imagery doesn't sit, and I'll look at a workable fix.


I did initially, but putting it in a workable format was more difficult than I wanted. It added a level of complexity that just didn't seem to merit the inclusion. It's still under consideration but obviously isn't fixed.


It's Guild. The background I've got under consideration is one that puts an alternate spin on it, separating it from the 'official' one. The standard background has the Guilds as a subset of the Stronghold. The Dvergatal one has the varied Guilds as it's core. The project is just so far beyond what I have time for, that I removed that part from the PDF until I do get around to completing it.


Cool. I look forward to hearing about how it goes. I'm curious how it'll hold up to some external stress-testing.

Morgan Vening

Someone buy this man a beer!

_________________
Frogbear is responsible for...
Previous World Eaters
Previous Emperor's Children
Previous Death Guard
Previous Imperial Fists
Previous Chaos Squats

Little secret. I STOLE lots. Not afraid to admit it. *looks around conspiratorially* Now don't tell anyone.


Heh. Yeah, if you thought opposition to non-15cm movement was harsh, I can't wait to see the arguments there. I did toy with the idea of a 50cm ranged shooting attack, but dismissed it quickly, as a stupid idea.


I'm really trying to keep my laughter under control as this is like the fourth time I've had to explain it. If taken in a similar format to any other race, my list has one special rule (Resolute). To use Dark Eldar (NetEA Draft version) as the counter-example, it has two (Fleet of Foot, Hit and Run).

Linking is no different (in principle, if not execution) to the Dark Eldar Transport Rules.

Support no different (in principle, if not execution) to the Kabal/Partisans/Aircraft ratios rule.

Transport just consolidated the same details the Raider, Slavebringer, Barge of Pleasure and Executor from the 7 units of mine that would have required them, and put them in one place, rather than repeating them seven times.

Lance, Penetrating Shot, Spotter/Seeker, Tunnellers, and Support Craft. That's five. Dark Eldar have eight. Lance, Webway, Shadowfields, WarpBeasts/Wyches, Raiders/Barge, Corsair/Torture, Karshnak, and May Not Garrison.

So, I've got less than nearly every other list besides the original three. Marines have two racial rules and one technology rule*, IG have one racial rule and two technology rules*, Ork have THREE racial rules, one technology rule, and the equivalents of Linking and Support. Yet my list (one racial, five technology) keeps getting criticized for "too many special rules"?

* Add in one more tech rule if you include allies.

Would it really make people that much happier if I moved all but Resolute into the Army List and datafax? Or combined some of the weapon technology rules into one heading (as Eldar and Dark Eldar do?)? I'll look at doing that for the next release. It seems like the only way I'll get my point across.

Morgan Vening

jeez, Morgan, how many special rules do you have here? 10? 15? Way too many IMO.

<runs really fast and hopes Morgan doesn't know where I live>

he he he

He's not coming all the way to PA just to get you... I don't think.

_________________
SG

Ghost's Paint Blog, where everything goes that isn't something else.