# Would/Could GW let some units die out?



## Ascendant (Dec 11, 2008)

As codices get redone, GW always adds new units. It makes sense in terms of keeping the army interesting, as well as encouraging you to buy more models. If your carnifexes now suck, you'll probably buy some trygons. Or whatever is the case for your army. However, in doing so, it seems like they eventually remove the niche for some units, and then you have these units floating around the codex that don't really do anything. Do you think GW would ever remove units from codices outright? For example, the whirlwind basically does nothing for the marines, because they made the thunderfire which fulfills the same role a lot better. Does the codex need both of these? Could they remove one, or would the backlash from fans of whatever unit got cut be too great? 

Mostly I feel like codices are becoming bloated in some cases, with redundant or over the top units. It's also making it so the armies are more similar, because they have an increasingly wide range of models.

Or I am just overreacting.


----------



## elmir (Apr 14, 2011)

They already cut out an entire race in the past. Why would they be too bothered with a single unit? I believe thunderwolf cav was gone for one edition as well... So are most of the imperial guard tanks. They often come and go depending on what edition of the codex you pick up...


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

I don`t think it`s likely. Some special characters have disappeared in recent codexes but more have been written. 

Guard, Nids, BA and GK have all seen more units intro`d and little or nothing lost.


----------



## demonictalkin56 (Jan 30, 2011)

the wulfen are no longer available.....shame too as i loved the models


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

True, but they still have rules. They still "exist" so to speak.


----------



## spanner94ezekiel (Jan 6, 2011)

They phase out HQ units evey edition, and they completely got rid of squats. I suppose they may scrap very old units that no one buys, but its expensive due to the moulds that were made for them need their costs to be made up.


----------



## demonictalkin56 (Jan 30, 2011)

do they? i did not know that!

also yes hq ones go out of fashion quickly.....my beloved chaplain xavier for one lol


----------



## Viscount Vash (Jan 3, 2007)

Zoats, Genestealer Hybrids, Chaos Cultists. Yeah it has happened before and will again at some point for sure.

When and where is anybodies guess though.


----------



## World Eater (Aug 31, 2008)

Hail,

Every editon of 40k allows for new units, while some become redundant or removed. New unit are generally good overall. Gives new tabletop choices, helps sales. I don't like the removal of units or modidification of an existing unit( such as the Razorback in 4th ed., only 2 variants, twin lascannon or twin Heavy bolters, so my 5 twin plasma/lascannon razorbacks weren't legal in a previous edition).
GW have always encouraged 'conversions' to work as new units (so your Doomrider character figure is now just a Chaos Lord on a bike, Cypher can go back to the Dark Angels Chapter as a Captain... etc.).

I've heard rumours over the years about why some units are removed from time to time(but I can't really validate any of the following speculations):
1) The sculpts are a difficult mould and sales are very poor so they get removed in the next edition( more often this happens to Special Characters).

2) A particular unit/ army list is the brainchild of some GW employee, who then quits or is fired. Removal of the unit/army list would then take away the legacy of the former employee. This is the popular speculation about what 'really' happened to the Squats as an army list.

3) This one's a good one: GW makes new models in a current edition, only to remove them in following editions. The reason for this? Because we, the 40k players, will continue to buy such units and because GW can thats why!

BFTBG!!

World Eater


----------



## bitsandkits (Mar 18, 2008)

Squats were removed because they were shite, the models were terrible, the idea was terrible and they dont fit the universe,They never had a codex, the range of models was very small and they were not very popular so they were dropped, what is amazing is the back lash GW have had about something that happened getting on for 20 years ago, i have seen and heard people complaining about the dropping of squats who have never seen a squat model in the flesh and were not even alive when they were binned.
Zoats and stealer cults just got absorbed into the nids, they were more experimental than anything anyway, they worshiped khorne after all and had beastmen, 
Chaos cultists i can see returning at some point and i suppose FW renegade militia is essentially the same thing. 

But in the grand scheme GW dont retire very many things and they add far more than they remove.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Squats were also removed because the entire concept was terrible for 40k. However in epic they were, well, epic. 

GW will never invalidate a unit again, I am 99% certain of that. They may well move things around a bit (eg wulfen) but they won't remove them completely.

Just a couple of things - I haven't got the 3rd edition codex to hand, but I would stake my reputation on the fact that thunderwilf Calvary are new to thus edition.

And b&k did ALL. Genestealer cults worship khorne? I thought that was only one option?


----------



## Djinn24 (Jan 12, 2008)

Maidel said:


> GW will never invalidate a unit again, I am 99% certain of that. They may well move things around a bit (eg wulfen) but they won't remove them completely.


They invalidate stuff all the time. Not so much as unit A it not around anymore as they change the options around where some models become invalid. From 2nd to 3rd they popped a LOT of stuff. They removed entire substypes of IG.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

djinn24 said:


> They invalidate stuff all the time. Not so much as unit A it not around anymore as they change the options around where some models become invalid. From 2nd to 3rd they popped a LOT of stuff. They removed entire substypes of IG.


That's why I said 'again'.

They won't ever take out a unit without leaving a place for it.

Eg - they took out tyranid hunters, but they were applicable as sternguard, took out wulfen units, but were applicable as models with the Mark of the wulfen.

Characters will always be picked up and dropped because those models are always applicable as general commanders.

Also, I seriously can't see them ever doing a '2nd to 3rd edition' style change again.


----------



## Kreuger (Aug 30, 2010)

Maidel, no all Genestealer cults didn't worship khorne. I can break out the compendium and check the actual rules, but I am almost positive that the cult's Patriarch could chose to open himself to possession and daemon worship to increase his cults power. 

And besides tyranids get tired of eating genestealer cults that all taste the same, a little daemonic seasoning makes keeps the palette fresh for new worlds!


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Thanks for that, thought I wasn't going mad. I feel 'lost' without my books when im replying from my phone.


----------



## Stephen_Newman (Jul 14, 2009)

I doubt that any unit is in any danger within the current game system of being dropped. This is simply because at the moment that every unit does hold a specific role within said army. If there were 2 units in the same army that did the same thing then I could understand but I fail to see anything like that.

FYI Whirlwinds are soo much better than Thunderfire cannons. This is mainly because the Whirlwind can fire indirectly and is not nullified by the first lascannon hit that makes it past the machines cover save. In fact if the Whirlwind is out of site it will not be destroyed until a lot later.


----------



## Luisjoey (Dec 3, 2010)

I complain because i would like to see more XENO enemies/allies, more than the squats. I don´t bother of extra armies because i would love to fight against them. 

With the new NIDS code a miniature that i love to use a lot got very nerfed and nowdays is pretty useless, the Lictor! the NIDZILLA improved to trygon but the carnifexes got really nerfed, i don´t see the real point of that, but they considered leaving in the codex than actually removing totally from the game, maybe in the next edition they get a payback as the thunderwolves made.


----------



## Evil beaver2 (Feb 3, 2009)

I think they generally nerf units to sell somthing else that can do a similar job, but they will likely make that unit better when they think that they can make more profits with that unit. Fexes are the best example, since the last codex made them so powerful that everyone who played nids had 4 or 5. There was no point in making them as good in the new codex since everyone already had them so no one would buy any more. That is why they made the trygon so powerful. Likely the next nid dex will feature more powerful fexes again since there will be newer players that dont have any because of their underpoweredness in this dex, and therefore will buy carnifexes.

I wont even try to explain what they were doing with the pyrovores though, they pretty much just fucked up in my opinion.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Units get removed every single edition, or even every single codex upgrade. Heck from 3rd to 4th edition (including the spinoff lists) orks lost skarboys, pigdogs, boarboys, guntrucks and madboys off the top of my head. Chapter approved from 4th edition included a stream of extra doctrines for imperial guard commanders to use and suggested how to model them, again they're simply gone now...just folded into a basic stat line. 
The thing is that they include new stuff for monetary reasons much of the time when their old creations just get written out completely. This is why my gaming group allows units from third edition onwards in our games...more choice and variety.


----------



## njfed (Jan 28, 2008)

Well, they made many Nid players rip the extra big gun off their Fex. I own 10 Necron Pariahs. Am I going to have to break them down to make them useful in the new dex?

Never say never.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> Units get removed every single edition, or even every single codex upgrade. Heck from 3rd to 4th edition (including the spinoff lists) orks lost skarboys, pigdogs, boarboys, guntrucks and madboys off the top of my head. Chapter approved from 4th edition included a stream of extra doctrines for imperial guard commanders to use and suggested how to model them, again they're simply gone now...just folded into a basic stat line. .


But thats exactly my point - units become obsolete, but the models dont. Boar boys = bikers with style, imperial guard with docterines = standard imperial guard, my old wind rider chieftain = autarch on bike.

They wont ever remove a unit again, it causes so much backlash and pain from players.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Maidel said:


> But thats exactly my point - units become obsolete, but the models dont. Boar boys = bikers with style, imperial guard with docterines = standard imperial guard, my old wind rider chieftain = autarch on bike.
> 
> They wont ever remove a unit again, it causes so much backlash and pain from players.



There is a difference between a unit not being removed and being usable only as a counts as model. It could be argued that a player with a squat army could count them as space marines and so therefore the squats were never removed. Boarboys were not the same as bikers, for a start they used the cavalry rules. Therefore they are only counts as bikers. The counts as rules mean that nothing can ever trully be unplayable. 

Just because you can use a unit as something else doesn't mean that the unit hasn't been removed. I can use my zoat models as tyranid warriors or even tau battlesuits...that doesn't mean that zoats as a unit were not removed.


----------



## Mossy Toes (Jun 8, 2009)

Chaos lost Doomrider. _Doomrider_.

None of you can complain, compared to what was taken from us. Our suffering is _deep_, man.

(ah well, "He comes, he goes!")


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

GrimzagGorwazza said:


> There is a difference between a unit not being removed and being usable only as a counts as model. It could be argued that a player with a squat army could count them as space marines and so therefore the squats were never removed. Boarboys were not the same as bikers, for a start they used the cavalry rules. Therefore they are only counts as bikers. The counts as rules mean that nothing can ever trully be unplayable.
> 
> Just because you can use a unit as something else doesn't mean that the unit hasn't been removed. I can use my zoat models as tyranid warriors or even tau battlesuits...that doesn't mean that zoats as a unit were not removed.


No, its not 'counts as' but ARE.

A 'named' chaos lord who is removed from the next codex is STILL a chaos lord.

A wulfen model who used to be part of a unit is STILL a wulfen model, its just the rules have changed.

A 'named' inquistor is STILL and inquistor.

If they take elrad out of the next codex the model will STILL be a farseer.

There is no counts as, not since the change from 4th onwards - all the models are still equally usable, its just the rules for them have changed.


----------



## Orochi (Jan 28, 2009)

I loved Doomrider. although he was a little 'ultimate'. Especially now in 5th, where having both a plasma gun and meltagun would be handy.


----------



## Alsojames (Oct 25, 2010)

If they take out Eldrad I will be very VERY butthurt.


----------



## goobi2 (Jun 1, 2009)

Don't worry, there are still guys out there with Spirit Stones with Eldrad soul in it. That alone is enough for them to keep him around a bit longer.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Maidel said:


> No, its not 'counts as' but ARE.
> 
> A 'named' chaos lord who is removed from the next codex is STILL a chaos lord.
> 
> ...


So how does a boarboys unit = bike squad? They are clearly a cavalry unit and weren't equipped with heavy weapons on the side of their pigs.

I challenge you to find an acurate representation for doomrider. The model clearly shows a bike riding chaos character with a rifle weapon and power sword, however the bike is clearly mounted with twin linked meltas and he is the only chaos character to ever be equipped in such a way. 
Arguing that the unit isn't removed because you can use the model doesn't mean that the unit still exists.

I have a scattering of squat models 5 in exo armour, most with long barrel lasguns adn several on bikes. I could field them as a squad of terminators, some basic marines and a unit of bikers...does that mean that squat exo armour squads still exist as a unit? of course not. If , using one of your own examples, eldrad was deleted from the next eldar codex then yes you could still use him as a farseer, but there would no longer be a unit called eldrad ulthran nor any rules for him. You can still use the model as Johnny Farseer as much as you want but eldrad as a unit would have been removed.

This is precisely what happened with the red terror, doom rider, boarboys, afrael strain guardsmen, commisar gaunt, captain tycho (i'm not sure if he was brought back for fifth edition so excuse this if i'm incorrect) and warbike outriders. 
Arguing that the model is still usable doesn't mean that a unit still exists, lets face it, the adherance to the rules they represent is more improtant then the actual model that is used. I could build a squad of ork kommandoes and not use only ork boy models. The only reason i can do so is because the rules for the kommandoes still exist. Untill you can find official rules for ork boarboys, boarboys and all of the above list are Removed units, reguardless of what you can get away with using them as.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Two things wrong with that statement if yours.

1) I never said they won't remove a unit, only that they won't invalidate models again like they did with squats.

2) I said AGAIN all of those are ancient history (relatively) so I don't need to answer how they can be used.


----------



## chromedog (Oct 31, 2007)

Thunderwolf cavalry were a new thing for 5th ed (not a pre-existing returned to the fold unit).

They have stated they will not be killing off entire armies ever again.
This is not to say that individual units will not be removed for an edition or two.

The IG has had several tanks removed for a couple of editions.
The Griffin mortar was a 2nd ed vehicle kit, like the basilisk that disappeared for an edition (4th) but they brought it back with extras - the collossus and Deathstrike.
(the Manticore, Hydra and Medusa were available as IA units for the last few editions).

SM will never lose tactical squads, the elites and HQ will be shuffled around though.
They will probably take with one hand and give with the other and what they give might not be of equivalent utility, but it will at least be a "hey, at least we gave you another option!") which will appease most players.


----------



## Kharnas (Oct 24, 2009)

I miss my tarantulas :cray:


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Kharnas said:


> I miss my tarantulas :cray:


Their rules or their models?

Forge world produce a selection of line defences including tarantula platforms.
http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Warhammer-40000/Space_Marines/Space-Marine-Support?filter_reset=1

Rules for which can be found in imperial armour 2, forces of the space marines Pg 178.
An apocalypse battle formation for a set of support weapons is located in imperial armour apocalypse pg 32.


----------



## Moonschwine (Jun 13, 2011)

I don't really see them killing off units these days, mainly because of player backlash. As an IG player it was hard to see some doctrines go, however the overall gains outweighed the losses.

I suspect that as rules become refined and streamlined we'll see greater folding of unit roles and phasing out of niches but the models will still exist to be a flavour choice. My best example of this would be rattlings who use to be IG only real sniper unit. Now you can bung snipers in through special weapons and squads if you want them to fill that role, but the rattling option is there.


----------



## Serpion5 (Mar 19, 2010)

The ratling example is a good one. Guard obtained special weapon squads and veterans which can be outfitted as snipers.  Cheaper in points too I think. 

Another example is nids. Genestealers used to be a single unit type in an old codex. Then they received the broodlord, then the ymgarl stealers over two editions. Eventually we may see options once again for a more genestealer oriented list like back in the old days. Not that I`d ever play it.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Ascendant said:


> Do you think GW would ever remove units from codices outright? ... Could they remove one, or would the backlash from fans of whatever unit got cut be too great?
> 
> Mostly I feel like codices are becoming bloated in some cases, with redundant or over the top units. It's also making it so the armies are more similar, because they have an increasingly wide range of models.


I've never seen them make great swathing cuts through a codex before. Nor remove units(unique and useful or redundant and useless). Oh I mean there was that little spat with those chaos kids, but they only removed a handful of things:
Cultists
God-specific daemons
Daemon packs
Iron Warriors
Alpha Legionnaires
Night Lords
Word Bearers
God-Dedicated Terminators
God-Dedicated Vehicles
Chaos Basilisks
Chaos Champions
Daemonic Gifts
Chaos Hounds
Followers
Chosen Honor Guard
Mono-Princes
Veteran Skills
Excess amounts of variance in upgrades for vehicles and wargear for characters

But hey yanno. No big. I mean we now have icons that do all those things right? Besides there was like zero backlash from the community, we didn't need those things.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Maidel said:


> A 'named' chaos lord who is removed from the next codex is STILL a chaos lord.
> 
> There is no counts as, not since the change from 4th onwards - all the models are still equally usable, its just the rules for them have changed.


Oh so my cultists are still in the new codex? 

And my chaos lord with the daemonic stature, daemon weapon, and retinue of chosen infiltrators with the unit champ sorcerer granting us daemonic gifts as the game goes on are all still units?

My furiously charging, counter attacking unit of alpha legionnaires with infiltrate, and a 2-wound champion with a compliment of three wolf followers still exist? This is excellent news! And he still has his master-crafted s10 power fist with spiky bits? Oh glorious day!

What's that you say? My chosen still have the icon of fearlessness and counter attack? Amazing! I'm so glad none of my models got invalidated!

I better unbox my non lesser-daemons and start using the full mix of bloodletters, daemonettes, and furies, since they totally aren't all the same exact statline anymore!

God bless you sir. Me and my terminator-armored cultist champion, possessed by a bloodthirster thank you, this is surely a revelation!


Maidel said:


> all the models are still equally usable


If you could preface this message by saying you aren't a tournament-player than this could hold true. But I can assure you beyond a shadow of a doubt you're entirely incorrect.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

LordWaffles said:


> Oh so my cultists are still in the new codex?
> 
> And my chaos lord with the daemonic stature, daemon weapon, and retinue of chosen infiltrators with the unit champ sorcerer granting us daemonic gifts as the game goes on are all still units?
> 
> ...


And - let me point you to the very very pertinant part of my post that you quoted, yet chose to ignore.

FROM 4th EDITON ONWARDS.

Everything you mentioned there was in the REVISED THIRD EDITION codex.


I dont mind being wrong - but just not being accused of being wrong, when I am in fact right.



PS - I am SURE that over time an individual model will be made redundant - but I am talking about units as a whole and in general.


PPS - and I would like to point out that almost all of your examples were really bad - just because your chaos champion doesnt have a master crafted this, or that special rule or whatever, doesnt detract from the fact that he is still a perfectly usable chaos champion model.


----------



## LordWaffles (Jan 15, 2008)

Maidel said:


> And - let me point you to the very very pertinant part of my post that you quoted, yet chose to ignore.
> 
> FROM 4th EDITON ONWARDS.
> 
> ...


Let's break this down than.
First let's look at the codecies done for fourth edition that have a 5th edition army completed, correct me if I'm wrong but this includes Tyranids and Vanilla marines, correct?

So you're saying that these two armies can use identical models and still be of championship quality? That nothing got lost in translation and all is sunshine and gumdrops? Surely no marine player dropped his asscan swarm with six man las/plas troops. No tyranid dropped his dakkafexes and flyrant?

Lastly...you must be pants-on-head retarded to think a chaos lord from this codex is anywhere close to a chaos lord of last codex. Being that last codex a chaos lord was mandatory. For the next codex(both 4th and 5th edition gamestyle) You're regoddamntarded if you put one on the board. People at tournaments will openly laugh at you. I'd laugh at you.

It's strange how "master-crafted this, or special rule that" suddenly become "No eternal warrior/Gigantic liability/Shitty daemonweapon/no legion traits". Ask any >s7 weapon in the galaxy what it's top ten things to hit are, I can promise you chaos lords rank up there. So no. The custom-built lords that presented the very character of the army are garbage as the intended model, and a sore excuse for some standard-issue aspiring champion of a squad.

"Perfectly usable" my ass. Nobody even purchases power weapons in our army at the top tier level of play. They either come standard(MC's, Sorceror) or they're power fists.

I'm not trying to chew you out, but blanket statementing something like that should require a bit more research and actual knowledge on the topic. You could however revise the statement to be more correct?


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Hang on - you are utterly 'changing the rules' so to speak.

No one EVER mentioned that new units had to be 'just as powerful' - you are adding far too much of your own issues, rather than actually debating with me what I said.


I said that GW will no longer invalidate models simply because they are changing codexes.


I have NOT said this will mean that all models will retain their original name (a named chaos lord in one edition is still a chaos lord in the next edition)

I have NOT said that army lists in one edition will be just as 'competative' as they were in the previous edition.

I have not said that every wargear option will stay the same between editions.


What I HAVE said is that GW will not do a 'kill all squats' thing again and completely invalidate all the models that someone owns.


Again, I will repeat - a marine who used to be 'uber' may well not be 'uber' in the next edition - he will still be a marine. If you CHOSE to replace him with something that is now uber, well, that is your choice. WHEREAS in previous editions GW completely removed entire sections from army lists (As you kindly pointed out in previous posts), I beleive they will not do this again.


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

Folks lets cut this arguement down huh? I think we all understand what the other people involved are trying to say but at some point and to some extent we all decided that being stubborn and sticking to our guns would lead to greater glory.

Maidel: You are completely correct in that GW are unlikely to completely invalidate models again as they did with the squats and zoats, at least not long term. I apologise for the tone i of some of my messages but it seemed to me that you were arguing that certain units would not be removed from the rules. As the question of the OP was related solely to codex entries you can probabley see how i came to that conclusion. 

Lord waffles: In his Discussion with me Maidel has several times that his arguements are solely related to the useablity of models rather than direct recreation of the rules. Your chaos cultists for example are still viable as part of a rebel army list from imperial armour or as a lost and the damned apocalypse formation. Are they tournament legal? no they aren't. Are they still usable in large friendly games when you are going to want a mass wall of bullet shields? yes. Likewise your lesser deamons can still be deployed from the codex deamons list in large games where alliances are allowed. Yes it's irritating that so much of the customisation was removed...we can only pray to the dark ones that the next dex will rectify this injustice.

OP: Yes units are removed from the codexes when new ones are released but models will not go out of date as Maidel has said. You may need to add more models to a unit, change some wargear within a unit or use them as a completely different unit altogether but games workshop will not kick you out of playing in their stores if you are using old models. If you try to play with squats or zoats though expect for them to boot you from the premises.


----------



## Maidel (Jun 28, 2009)

Hmm, maybe I misunderstood the op. I thought he was referring to the models as apposed specifically to individual codex entries. His example with the whirlwind made me think he was asking if the whirlwind model (for example) would ever become unusable.

Maybe that was my bad understanding of what he meant.

I will agree no question that UNITS are removed from codexes, there is a list as long as my arm that proves that as an unequivocal fact. My point was that although 'tyranid hunters' is no longer an ultramarine unit entry, they are still perfectly usable as sternguard which replaced them.


----------



## jaws900 (May 26, 2010)

Mandrakes, Cultisits, Squats. Just a few that i know of and can resite of the top of my head.


----------



## DeceivedRadek (Jun 4, 2011)

Anyone remember Chaos Androids, they were dropped because of the similarity of the models to Necrons.


----------



## DeceivedRadek (Jun 4, 2011)

LordWaffles said:


> I've never seen them make great swathing cuts through a codex before. Nor remove units(unique and useful or redundant and useless). Oh I mean there was that little spat with those chaos kids, but they only removed a handful of things:
> Cultists
> God-specific daemons
> Daemon packs
> ...


I miss cultists and chaos hounds and i really wish i could still take a Basilisk, i don't like vindicator models.:angry:


----------



## GrimzagGorwazza (Aug 5, 2010)

DeceivedRadek said:


> Anyone remember Chaos Androids, they were dropped because of the similarity of the models to Necrons.



Actually necrons were developed long after chaos androids were oop. The first necron models were produced in 1997 just befor ethe release of third edition. Chaos androids had no rules following the introduction of second edition rules in 1993. That means that the Chaos android models had been obsolete for at least 4 years before the necrons hit the scene. 

Note i'm not disputing that the necrons don't look like chaos androids and lets be honest they are certainly their progeny. It just doesn't make sense for the reason that somethign to be discontinued to be because it looks like something that hasn't been released yet and will not be released for 4 years. 

Chaos androids were dropped a long time before the necrons came onto the scene.


----------



## Warlock in Training (Jun 10, 2008)

LordWaffles said:


> I've never seen them make great swathing cuts through a codex before. Nor remove units(unique and useful or redundant and useless). Oh I mean there was that little spat with those chaos kids, but they only removed a handful of things:
> Cultists
> God-specific daemons
> Daemon packs
> ...


:angry:Way to open up old wounds :ireful2:


----------

