Again, this is basically the same as arguing that there should be no rules at all.

Other rules in the game actually accomplish those things. Taking the marksman talents lets your character make awesome called shots without penalty. Others let you gather information really well. There are plenty of rules that serve to empower player and character actions.

Encumbrance isn't one of them. What he's suggesting (quite reasonably), is that rules that serve only adjudicate problems between the GM and the players don't deserve space in the book. Rules that empower players and characters to interact with the game and the story - those are the rules that should be front and center.

1) Even a gradually increasing penalty for weight still has the issue of being unintuitive. It comes down to 1 kg being the difference between penalty 1 and penalty 2. And it also doesn't address HOW things are being carried. Keep in mind for people carrying around weapons as part of their job, the only things they're really going to be concerned about the weight of in the field are huge bulky things that they can't carry for long or that require all of their strength to carry around.

2) but then the rules say to only use them as needed. So they're contradicting things. And I don't believe that most stat blocks list weapon/armor weights for NPCs. And the mental image of stopping a game (when weight becomes relevant, per the rules that fdsfg keeps mentioning) for everyone to add up a dozen values each, double checking, and so on, seems like it would completely halt a game and story and whatever mood was set up.

3) lots of items have no listed weight. Most things with a weight listed are combat related. If an item is meant to be balanced by its weight, the rule that encumbrance should only be used when relevant means that those weapons are only balanced when the GM seems it relevant to do so. As opposed to other weapons that are ALWAYS restricted by ther mechanics.

4) again, I don't really see the need to have a rule exist SOLELY for the GM to say you can't do that, when the rule could add more to the game for the non-munchkin players and the non-put upon GM.

Please note I was listing the three system ideas as quasi-independent ideas, rather than a cohesive system.

1) see above for more detailed implementation.

2) if I were to do a subtlety-based system it would probably be akin to just having encumbrance/ carrying limits very minimally tracked, with all of the attention being on how subtle a weapon is. It could be use for the slot system with an option to "hide" weapons that causes a one turn penalty to draw them out. The point of a subtlety baed symptom would be for players to think less about how much they can carry and more about what message their equipment is sending. And also feeling like badass super spies.

3) this would be taken care of by certain weapons having a bulky trait that gives their carriers penalties to movement or the like, and other weapons being very fragile technology. Basically players can choose between big slow weapons, fragile weapons, reliable weapons, etc. this would also be very Gamey, but would allow for some fun roleplaying about equipment choice and allow players to build niches in combat.

1) I see where your'e coming from; I guess it just doesn't bother me. Just out of curiosity, how do you feel about the Fatigue mechanics? There's a magical amount of tiredness that suddenly makes you less effective. Does that bother you in the same way?

3) What things?? Clothing and Personal Gear has weight listed. Tools have weights listed. The only thing I don't see listed weights for are most of the drugs, which I just assume are meant to have a negligible weight per dose.

1) I don't really mind the new fatigue rules. I like that they took the idea of fatigue exceeding a Characteristic bonus causing it to affect that bonus from WFRP3E (at least I think that's where this rule came from). I don't mind it causing someone to pass out at a certain level, either. I feel like the reason for this is that a unit of fatigue is a lot more abstract than 1kg. A unit of fatigue is basically defined as a unit used to measure when you'll pass out/be penalized, whereas a kg is an actual unit of weight used for other things. The gamey nature of fatigue makes it easier to use intuitively.

3) I went back and checked, and yes, they've fixed up the weights for a lot of things, with some notable exceptions (autoquill, multikey, drugs). I recall that back in older DH supplements weights tended to get ignored a lot, so we'll see how it goes for this line. This does bring me to another criticism I have of the system in general, and it's that other than weight values, there is no guidance for how BIG something is. I recall having a character who wanted to carry around a number generator (basically a computer/calculator) in rogue trader until I checked the weight and realized that its meant to be too heavy to carry around. Nowhere in the description is this mentioned. Lots of items suffer the sin of requiring the player to look at the weight rating to get an idea of the actual size/portability of the item, rather than the description of the item itself.

Edit: I think the "halving the characteristic penalty" of fatigue is bad, though.

1) making players do division

2) causing a worse penalty to characters with higher characteristics

3) for the above if the point is to make sure everyone is really bad when fatigued, it would be better to have some other kind of flat penalty, like allowing one maximum degrees of success, or -5 or -10 for each fatigue point over the bonus.

Again, this is basically the same as arguing that there should be no rules at all.

Except it isn't. The encumbrance rules are in place to limit character inventories and to provide a justification for the GM saying, "No, you can't do that." [...] rules that serve only adjudicate problems between the GM and the players don't deserve space in the book.

Game designers should simply assume that there are no 'power gamers', and leave it entirely up to individual GMs to stamp down any problems that arise from that false assumption? No thank you. If I'm buying a game with my own hard-earned money, I expect the game designers to at least attempt to limit abuses within their system, rather than pawning 100% of that responsibility onto me. As a GM, I should be able to focus on presenting an exciting adventure in a more-or-less plausible setting, supported by the ruleset, and not be forced to constantly bring the game to a halt to overrule this or that player excess, with regular arguments ensuing when there is no Rule As Written to justify the ruling.

You can't call an rpg a toolset and avoid criticism because tools can be judged by their ability to fulfill a purpose, and can very obviously be analyzed for what purpose they're fulfilling.

"That consideration, IMO, should heavily influence the way we evaluate and consider RPGs. Consider each medium on its own merits, rather than imposing the standards of one medium on another."

I'm not saying that an RPG cannot be critiqued, nor have I made any attempt to do so. You're the one choosing to infer that from my posts, and argue against that particular strawman. I'm saying that the criteria under which we regard RPGs should consider that an RPG is fundamentally more a toolkit than a complete product - an RPG rulebook is the tools with which people play an RPG, rather than being the game in its own right. Criticism of RPGs - which isn't exactly a flourishing field of game journalism - should account for the fact that an RPG ruleset is different to other kinds of game.

Now, I'm going to back out of this pitiful excuse for a discussion, because it's honestly not worth the time or effort to remain even slightly involved in this relentless bitching.

Again, this is basically the same as arguing that there should be no rules at all.

Except it isn't. The encumbrance rules are in place to limit character inventories and to provide a justification for the GM saying, "No, you can't do that." [...] rules that serve only adjudicate problems between the GM and the players don't deserve space in the book.

Game designers should simply assume that there are no 'power gamers', and leave it entirely up to individual GMs to stamp down any problems that arise from that false assumption? No thank you. If I'm buying a game with my own hard-earned money, I expect the game designers to at least attempt to limit abuses within their system, rather than pawning 100% of that responsibility onto me. As a GM, I should be able to focus on presenting an exciting adventure in a more-or-less plausible setting, supported by the ruleset, and not be forced to constantly bring the game to a halt to overrule this or that player excess, with regular arguments ensuing when there is no Rule As Written to justify the ruling.

Except the system we're talking about, well, mostly, is massively abusable. 40k RPG is insanely easy to "powerbuild". I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing per se, but, given the manner in which it is done, and the usual response being to powerbuild NPCs in the same way (Toughness, toughness, toughness, massive HP!), it basically makes combat generally last beyond "exciting" and go into "Is it -finally- dead yet?".

You can't call an rpg a toolset and avoid criticism because tools can be judged by their ability to fulfill a purpose, and can very obviously be analyzed for what purpose they're fulfilling.

I note that you completely ignored a fairly pertinent sentence in the post you responded to:

"That consideration, IMO, should heavily influence the way we evaluate and consider RPGs. Consider each medium on its own merits, rather than imposing the standards of one medium on another."

I'm not saying that an RPG cannot be critiqued, nor have I made any attempt to do so. You're the one choosing to infer that from my posts, and argue against that particular strawman. I'm saying that the criteria under which we regard RPGs should consider that an RPG is fundamentally more a toolkit than a complete product - an RPG rulebook is the tools with which people play an RPG, rather than being the game in its own right. Criticism of RPGs - which isn't exactly a flourishing field of game journalism - should account for the fact that an RPG ruleset is different to other kinds of game.

Now, I'm going to back out of this pitiful excuse for a discussion, because it's honestly not worth the time or effort to remain even slightly involved in this relentless bitching.

You know, the context of this conversation was myself and others criticizing the current encumbrance system's ability to contribute meaningfully to gameplay and theme. You're the one who brought up this idea of criticizing an RPG on its own merits in direct response to this. I am left to infer that you either don't believe that criticizing a rule's ability to contribute to theme and gameplay is not part of the "considering [rpgs] on [their] own merits" or that you're just attempting to shut down criticism by saying that it should only focus on certain things without mentioning what those things actually are.

It's too bad you're leaving the discussion. It felt like we were actually getting somewhere.

Again, this is basically the same as arguing that there should be no rules at all.

Except it isn't. The encumbrance rules are in place to limit character inventories and to provide a justification for the GM saying, "No, you can't do that." [...] rules that serve only adjudicate problems between the GM and the players don't deserve space in the book.

Game designers should simply assume that there are no 'power gamers', and leave it entirely up to individual GMs to stamp down any problems that arise from that false assumption? No thank you. If I'm buying a game with my own hard-earned money, I expect the game designers to at least attempt to limit abuses within their system, rather than pawning 100% of that responsibility onto me. As a GM, I should be able to focus on presenting an exciting adventure in a more-or-less plausible setting, supported by the ruleset, and not be forced to constantly bring the game to a halt to overrule this or that player excess, with regular arguments ensuing when there is no Rule As Written to justify the ruling.

Except the rules as written are forcing either your players to do constant extra busy-work with weights and calculating things (god help anyone trying to track ammo weights!) or you as a GM are having to frequently monitor when it becomes "relevant" for you to stop everything to check encumbrance. There are better ways to prevent "power-gaming."

Again, this is basically the same as arguing that there should be no rules at all.

Except it isn't. The encumbrance rules are in place to limit character inventories and to provide a justification for the GM saying, "No, you can't do that." They do nothing to empower the player, nothing to provide color to the game, nothing to deepen immersion in the game's main themes. They're only there to provide a framework for dispute resolution.

The movement rules are also there only to limit characters from being anywhere (or even everywhere) instantly, but I still think that they need to be there. And, much like encumbrance, I don't pay attention to the movement when people are simply walking down a hallway in a non-action scene--I just use common sense.

Again, this is basically the same as arguing that there should be no rules at all.

Except it isn't. The encumbrance rules are in place to limit character inventories and to provide a justification for the GM saying, "No, you can't do that." They do nothing to empower the player, nothing to provide color to the game, nothing to deepen immersion in the game's main themes. They're only there to provide a framework for dispute resolution.

The movement rules are also there only to limit characters from being anywhere (or even everywhere) instantly, but I still think that they need to be there. And, much like encumbrance, I don't pay attention to the movement when people are simply walking down a hallway in a non-action scene--I just use common sense.

Arguably, the movement rules are there to promote strategic choice and tactics in combat. I could get into the fact that they're effectively impossible to adjudicate correctly without a visual grid, but here we are. Interestingly, I believe that the original D&D had very abstracted out movement during combat, even though you'd think it would also want to limit things. The encumbrance rules do far less to promote strategic choice than the movement rules do, however (although the movement rules are also pretty poorly implemented, and I think I've made this exact same rebuttal before).

although the movement rules are also pretty poorly implemented,

Ah, why not; I'll bite...

What's wrong with the movement rules?

The big issue with the movement rules is how poorly they scale with weapon ranges. Choosing to scale movement by single meters means that movement requires the use of a grid to properly represent, and that this grid ends up representing a very small area due to physical table space. It's basically impossible for most tables to handle a grid with movement outside of the close range for most of the basic weapons. This also means that character movement ends up scaling very poorly with vehicle movement due to the drastic differences in size of PCs versus vehicles. And again, I will reiterate that the movement system MUST use a grid in order to accurately reflect the differences between agility 30 and agility 40 characters (which represents a significant difference in this system), and that the use of this grid in turn causes many weapons to suddenly be much more or less useful. In addition, the very small movement rate of characters mean that navigating around objects on a grid will use up way too much movement, which will in turn limit their tactical usefulness. Also, having such discrete movement rates further serves to muck up the whole conceit of an initiative system representing everyone moving simultaneously, even though this is obviously not the case.

Summed up:

1) Movement requires a grid to actually use and there are limited rules for using a grid and various repercussions of using one that the rules don't really address

2) Movement as measured in such discrete units directly contradicts the concept of a round consisting of a bunch of simultaneous actions or a single attack representing an exchange of blows. Basically, different parts of the same round end up working on different timescales.

3) Movement in this game is so slow that the best option is usually to stay in one place rather than any kind of tactical advance or flanking. This ends up reinforcing that the only strategic part of combat is in what talents and weapons are picked, not in how the actual combat is played.

I would like to point out a few things on the encumbrance system in the book that are in this edition. They are from pg. 248 paragraph on carrying, lifting, and pushing objects.

1. First as others have pointed out, for most the time it is not needed to know weight of what someone is carrying, only if there is a common sense reason to check it. This was in the first edition as well.
2. An average character fallows a lose guideline that they may carry a main weapon, 1-2 second weapons, some ammo and items that can fit in a carrying pack (etc.).

These rules I find as important as that of the overall calculation of weight compared to the sum of your strength and toughness score. In my experience running a two year Dark Heresy/Rogue Trader campaign the last entry would have been helpful. I will give you an example.

Game I ran had three players and I trusted them to keep track of what they carried around with them from investigation to investigation. Never worried about the weight or overall book keeping, until it came up on adventure. Two of the characters carried a reasonable amount of gear, the third was a little out of line. Character A, we will call him the Judge (Arbitrator), with a huge strength and toughness bonus reads the weight table and abuses it. How you say, well through this he can become mister pack mule and still be unencumbered. Though he is literally a walking junk pile of weapons and stuff dodging attacks like a boss. This is what he was carrying when I found out, I’m not joking about this. Mind you he was like only a few kilograms under his max.

Melee Weapons: 2 Chain Swords, 1 Shock Maul, 1 Combat Shield

Close Combat Range Weapons: 2 Bolt Pistols, 1 Hand Flamer, 1 Plasma Pistol

Long Range Weapons: Combat Shotgun, Angelus Bolt Carbine

Ammo: 2 Clips for each weapon

Gear: Storm Trooper Carapace Armor, Backpack, Manacles, Excruciator Kit, Portable Rack

Total Weight Around : 76 kg to his 78kg max.

He thought there was nothing wrong with this at all. I ruled at the time, that if he wanted to walk around with a squads worth of gear on him, he would incur a -10 to Agility checks to dodge since the bulk alone made him hard to miss. He took went with it for a few encounters but got hit a few more times then he liked. So, he came up with a solution to this by getting a Servitor Valet that carried around half his gear in a Arms Coffer. It came with the bonus of being a meat shield and cover as it had lots of armor and carried his combat shield.

I would really recommend not focusing on book keeping, for the most part on, weight rarely comes into to play and most players are show common sense and reason. Just once in awhile just ask what they happen to be toting around to see if there is a Mail Ninja Munchkin Monkey lurking in the group.

Common Sense is a lot easier then having to look at the Carry tables and rules on pg. 248, the penalty on pg. 249, the Fatigue Rules on pg. 233, then inventorying all gear and weapons you have from pg. 152-178, and don’t forget the ammo weight rule on pg.166 while your there.

From the rulebook: 'In general, an average character can reasonably carry a main weapon, such as a lasgun, autogun, or flamer, plus one or two secondary weapons like a pistol or melee weapon.'

There is a big difference between carry a lasgun (main weapon) and 2 pistols (secondary) and carry a lascannon (primary) and 2 great weapons (secondary melee weapons).

On the subject of movement being an issue through scaling between weapon range and movement. I think through experience that most of the time the standard grid size map is a nice size for most combat encounters you face. It allows the melee focused and the shotty members to use their abilities or to mix it up as they choose.

Though ever so often you can through in an encounter that comes at them with long range weapons. I would run this buy starting out on a normal game grid map and a secondary sheet of graph paper to show the larger combat area. On the game map mark out distances to combat targets off the main game map. If people want to close the distance they will now know the distance to move or fire if targets just are too far to engage on foot. If the group decides to move on target re draw map once the get with in range of said target on the large game map. This really not that more of a problem then running on just the game map.

The harder issue is vehicle speed and people movement, but usually they rarely happen together. If they do its back to graph paper and plotting its position. If it’s all vehicle movement just adjust all hexes to equal 10 meters or etc. depending what suits the situation of game play.

I disagree with the approach of just sticking put rather then advancing or out flanking because a guess movement is “harrrd” approach. In some situations that will just get a total party wipe, especially if not every member of the party can do things at long range.

Let me give you an example of this from the same game I mentioned in my last post. Setup, the Judge, Magos Secutor, and Assassin Sniper have landed on a world and have been slowly destroying the Beast House Hunt / Archeotech Digs on said world and making the Villainous Traders who run them very angry. After four encounters, two of them combats that they won with out to much trouble, they thought things where going good. Heck the first combat encounter they scouted by stealth and set up a sniping attack that left them untouched. The only problem was that the other two encounters were social and political that they failed badly. This allowed the bad guys to set up a trap. Turnabout is far play, so the enemy got them to go to a spot on the open plains they had prepared. They arrived by Venator Pattern Air Yacht crewed by Beast House dupes to the kill zone. A krack missile hits the Air Yacht and it crashes into the savannah. The Judge, Magos, and Assassin jump out of the flaming wreckage to meet four Kroot coming for them on the table top grid map. As they fight out the close range targets they notice that there is a three man missile team hundred of meters out ranging in for another shot. The Assassin starts a shooting match with the rocket team while the Magos and Judge deals with the Kroot close up. Then a few rounds latter the last Kroot, the Pack Master with the snipered up Pulse Rifle opens up on them. The Judge switches to his sniper rifle, the Angelus Bolt Carbine, and counter snipes the Pack Master and kills him with his last special bolt round. At this point the Judge and Magos run through the long grass to get what’s left of the missiles crew the Assassin been fighting. Closing the distance the rocket crew down to one fires and hits the Assassin which starts him to bleed out. The Judge and Magos decide to close the distance still to knock out the missile launcher. They get the missile launcher but by the time they got back to the Assassin he has bleed out because it took so long to get back.

If they had not run to take out the missile launcher they were most likely have died, especially after the Assassin bought it and the Angelus ran dry. One of them could have turned and saved the Assassin, but it did take a few hits to put the last guy down which could have let him get of a few more rockets, which are basically one shot kill or out of action each.

All this movement and game play just had a table top grid map with distances to targets outside the map and a grid paper map to show over all combat scene.

This range issue reminded me the Longest Shot our gaming group has ever had: an augmented (so it wasn't the sniper who pulled the trigger, she was "just" hard-wired into a special sniping platform in an aerospace craft) snipe from the upper atmosphere, some 1000+ kilometers away from the target.

Advanced technology would solve (read: make pointless) so many problems with the combat system ...

Summed up:

1) Movement requires a grid to actually use and there are limited rules for using a grid and various repercussions of using one that the rules don't really address

2) Movement as measured in such discrete units directly contradicts the concept of a round consisting of a bunch of simultaneous actions or a single attack representing an exchange of blows. Basically, different parts of the same round end up working on different timescales.

3) Movement in this game is so slow that the best option is usually to stay in one place rather than any kind of tactical advance or flanking. This ends up reinforcing that the only strategic part of combat is in what talents and weapons are picked, not in how the actual combat is played.

Regarding 1, we don't use a grid and haven't done for years. We use a distance tracker and descriptors. Hard to explain since my native tongue isn't English, but it works well for us.

Regarding 3. Sprinting, charging, Slaught'ing it (the drug) up seems to get around that just fine.

Note that most of our combats are in the 5-400meters range.

After 21 pages of debating I would've thought the mods would lock this thread.

They only lock when actual insults (towards users not themselves) are thrown.

They only lock when actual insults (towards users not themselves) are thrown.

Usually not then, either, sadly. For all intents and purposes, the forum is rules-less and moderator-less. You have to levvy a crazy amount of reports for them to ever do anything against anyone or anything.

Summed up:1) Movement requires a grid to actually use and there are limited rules for using a grid and various repercussions of using one that the rules don't really address2) Movement as measured in such discrete units directly contradicts the concept of a round consisting of a bunch of simultaneous actions or a single attack representing an exchange of blows. Basically, different parts of the same round end up working on different timescales.3) Movement in this game is so slow that the best option is usually to stay in one place rather than any kind of tactical advance or flanking. This ends up reinforcing that the only strategic part of combat is in what talents and weapons are picked, not in how the actual combat is played.

Regarding 1, we don't use a grid and haven't done for years. We use a distance tracker and descriptors. Hard to explain since my native tongue isn't English, but it works well for us.Regarding 3. Sprinting, charging, Slaught'ing it (the drug) up seems to get around that just fine. Note that most of our combats are in the 5-400meters range.

That being said best way my groups have found to run fights is a program like Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds. Hell even something like Paint could work. Zoomable maps (panning helps too) make everything a lot easier (you can fit 500x500 on screen for ranged combat and then 20x20 for melee).

Again, this is basically the same as arguing that there should be no rules at all.

Except it isn't. The encumbrance rules are in place to limit character inventories and to provide a justification for the GM saying, "No, you can't do that." [...] rules that serve only adjudicate problems between the GM and the players don't deserve space in the book.

Game designers should simply assume that there are no 'power gamers', and leave it entirely up to individual GMs to stamp down any problems that arise from that false assumption? No thank you. If I'm buying a game with my own hard-earned money, I expect the game designers to at least attempt to limit abuses within their system, rather than pawning 100% of that responsibility onto me. As a GM, I should be able to focus on presenting an exciting adventure in a more-or-less plausible setting, supported by the ruleset, and not be forced to constantly bring the game to a halt to overrule this or that player excess, with regular arguments ensuing when there is no Rule As Written to justify the ruling.

Except the system we're talking about, well, mostly, is massively abusable. 40k RPG is insanely easy to "powerbuild". I don't necessarily consider this a bad thing per se, but, given the manner in which it is done, and the usual response being to powerbuild NPCs in the same way (Toughness, toughness, toughness, massive HP!), it basically makes combat generally last beyond "exciting" and go into "Is it -finally- dead yet?".

I absolutely agree that the system is prone to abuse, but that doesn't justify making it even worse.

There are better ways to prevent "power-gaming."

Undoubtedly, but this whole argument about Encumbrance started from the assertion that there should be no Encumbrance rules, just GM fiat.

After 21 pages of debating I would've thought the mods would lock this thread.

Moderator involvement is about as common as Bigfoot sightings on these forums...

Summed up:1) Movement requires a grid to actually use and there are limited rules for using a grid and various repercussions of using one that the rules don't really address2) Movement as measured in such discrete units directly contradicts the concept of a round consisting of a bunch of simultaneous actions or a single attack representing an exchange of blows. Basically, different parts of the same round end up working on different timescales.3) Movement in this game is so slow that the best option is usually to stay in one place rather than any kind of tactical advance or flanking. This ends up reinforcing that the only strategic part of combat is in what talents and weapons are picked, not in how the actual combat is played.

Regarding 1, we don't use a grid and haven't done for years. We use a distance tracker and descriptors. Hard to explain since my native tongue isn't English, but it works well for us.Regarding 3. Sprinting, charging, Slaught'ing it (the drug) up seems to get around that just fine. Note that most of our combats are in the 5-400meters range.

From my experience grid is necessary only for melee combat. At range a rough outline of the combat area (what provides cover, what blocks LOS etc.) and distances tend to suffice.

That being said best way my groups have found to run fights is a program like Roll20 or Fantasy Grounds. Hell even something like Paint could work. Zoomable maps (panning helps too) make everything a lot easier (you can fit 500x500 on screen for ranged combat and then 20x20 for melee).

The best thing about Roll20 is that it actually supports fractioned square sizes and measurements. By putting the Scale to 1 Unit = 4m and Grid Size at 0.25 Units, it's easy to play out really large areas even with a grid.

Undoubtedly, but this whole argument about Encumbrance started from the assertion that there should be no Encumbrance rules, just GM fiat.

It just reminds me of the Listed Costs & Values issue again and how some are adamantly opposed to even listing such a thing so that the GM can take it into account when relevant. It's odd as hell, to me, because I'd rather have a base to judge things from and then discard things that aren't relevant at any one time, than to not have that base at all and then have to handwave it when it's actually important to the narrative.

For some reason, some have a huge problem with thinking of the rules as a frame of reference for the GM in order to give him a foundation to arbitrate.

While this is a totally valid way to approach games, it is also a very old approach (I understand this was how the original D&D was meant to be played). Modern games have done away with this and present the rules as the framework through which the players (GM included) interact with the narrative.

I personally find the 'rules are for arbitration' design methodology to be outdated and don't really enjoy playing games designed that way.

This difference in the purpose of the rules is probably the foundation of this whole disagreement over the encumbrance system.

I think you've arrived at a topic worth discussing, fsdfsdgf.

- a lot of things in the 40k universe already suffers from visualization issues at the table.

True enough. I've never been able to get a clear answer as to what the hell an 'autoquill' is supposed to be.

I think you've arrived at a topic worth discussing, fsdfsdgf.

I think we've also found the real heart of a lot of these disagreements.