Jump to content

AoS 2 - Moonclan Discussion


Chris Tomlin
 Share

Recommended Posts

So are people still going to take a warboss in the post FAQ era? 

I ran some numbers...

Stabbas
60 grots (assuming 9 netttas stabbas & max attacks) puts out 6.5 mortal wounds and 30 normal wounds) vs 50  before.
vs 4+ save: 6.5 mortals & 15 normal vs 26 before

Spears
60 grots (assuming 9 nettas, spears & max attacks) puts out 5 mortal wounds and 23 normal wounds) vs 38  before.
vs 4+ save: 5 mortals & 12 normal vs 19 before

Conclusion
So basically - the anything with a 4+ or worse, the old double damage is better. Things with a better save then mortal wounds is better. Now the problem is that it is quite hard to get all 60 in combat.

Netters

So looking at 9 netters (which I'd almost always have in combat): 2.25 mortals & 9 normal vs 16 previously. VS a 4+ save.  its 2.25 mortals & 4.5 normal vs 8 normal...

I feel like it's pretty mixed between the two (both have +'ves and negatives). That said, I rarely ran my grots into 3+ or 2+ saves opponents (or if i did, i didn't
expect them to do damage). Very few units now have access to better than 3+ (excluding stardrakes).

Reduced Range:

That said, the reduced range (and wholly within) means that I struggle to see me being able to get the ability off, and I'll have to push my warboss up the field (I used to prefer holding him back as an objective grabber).

Combat Phase Ability

The fact it is a combat phase ability somewhat offsets the fact that it could last for multiple turns previously


Sooooo what are your thoughts? I think i'm swapping out my warboss for 3 fanatics in the meantime

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Malakree said:

It's cool, sometimes the wording can be arcane lawyer speak. Those of us who are really ****** over rules can decipher it but to normal people it looks like gibberish ?

That is because GW clings onto some absurd rules concepts and in a number of cases it forces them to write very convoluted rules.  An example is how cover works.  That word-salad is the result of GW clinging so hard to true line-of-sight rather than going to the type of line of sight rules most games use where you draw a line from one base to another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

That is because GW clings onto some absurd rules concepts and in a number of cases it forces them to write very convoluted rules.  An example is how cover works.  That word-salad is the result of GW clinging so hard to true line-of-sight rather than going to the type of line of sight rules most games use where you draw a line from one base to another.

And also clinging to relics of the past (such as using relic of past editions "to wound" to describe the roll to see if you damage someone, and then that damage turning into wounds).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Donal said:

Sooooo what are your thoughts? I think i'm swapping out my warboss for 3 fanatics in the meantime

I am not sure how useful it is to run the numbers on blocks of 60 attacks given that you will probably never actually pull that off.  Most of the time even a unit with spears is going to be too big to get all of the models into combat - stabbas are almost guaranteed to never get that much into range to attack.

I am still going to run the Warboss for a few reasons.  First, I like the Skarsnik & Gobbla model too much to leave at home on the shelf.  That is probably the biggest reason if I am honest, but to me it is a real reason.  But, I also think that the new ability is still useful.  Mortal wounds are good and it means that our units can potentially tar-pit and kill off some very tough units.  It also gives us some semi guaranteed damage.  Previously the double damage was prevented by saves.  We did very well  against light armored units, but then you would bounce off things with good armor.  Now, even if you can't punch through the armor you should get some mortal wounds into the mix.  I like that.

In regards to keeping the boss close to units, I plan to do that anyways.  If we are running blocks of grots we will want to have heroes close by to be able to use Inspiring Presence on them or else these units will get obliterated by battleshock.  The 4 wound heroes with low armor saves are also very vulnerable and I would prefer that they have access to Look Out Sir and any other protective measure I can get for them - such as bubble wrap.  So I don't see the fully-within as too much of a problem.

It will probably be a bit tougher to get the buff off on Squig Hoppers though - unless you send them in as a second-wave sort of unit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

29 minutes ago, amysrevenge said:

And also clinging to relics of the past (such as using relic of past editions "to wound" to describe the roll to see if you damage someone, and then that damage turning into wounds).

Yes, they need to fully embrace the concept of defined keywords.  So many issues that they continually have would be solved by that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

Yes, they need to fully embrace the concept of defined keywords.  So many issues that they continually have would be solved by that.

That and to not introduce new words that can be interchanged with old words, the whole army/alliegence debarcle never should of happened the way it did. Why change the word if it is only going to work with the old word...

 

So ignoring my salt, GW do have a problem when it comes to the way they structor their rules and AOS 2.0 has highlighted this. They have tried to bring in an evolved rule set but have copy pasted large sections of the old rules without checking if the new wording works with the old.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Davros said:

So ignoring my salt, GW do have a problem when it comes to the way they structor their rules and AOS 2.0 has highlighted this. They have tried to bring in an evolved rule set but have copy pasted large sections of the old rules without checking if the new wording works with the old.

Get used to it.  I have played for over 25 years and their rules issues have not improved in that time.  

Eventually you just get over it and learn to deal with it.  Although, complaining about it every now and then is still cathartic.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, Skabnoze said:

Get used to it.  I have played for over 25 years and their rules issues have not improved in that time.  

Eventually you just get over it and learn to deal with it.  Although, complaining about it every now and then is still cathartic.

I have been playing for 15 years now, so i should be used to it.

My favorite part in the evolution of GW was where they would have the fluff of the unit directly above the unit's ingame stats and they wouldn't work like the fluff said it would. First real game at a tournie i was playing the unit how the fluff said thinking it was how it worked to have my opponent at the time nicely inform me that sadly that wasn't how things worked. (Didn't realise at the time it was fluff and not rules)

 

Ahh good times.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

15 hours ago, Skabnoze said:

I am not sure how useful it is to run the numbers on blocks of 60 attacks given that you will probably never actually pull that off.  Most of the time even a unit with spears is going to be too big to get all of the models into combat - stabbas are almost guaranteed to never get that much into range to attack.

... It also gives us some semi guaranteed damage.  Previously the double damage was prevented by saves.  We did very well  against light armored units, but then you would bounce off things with good armor.  Now, even if you can't punch through the armor you should get some mortal wounds into the mix.  I like that.

In regards to keeping the boss close to units, I plan to do that anyways.  If we are running blocks of grots we will want to have heroes close by to be able to use Inspiring Presence on them or else these units will get obliterated by battleshock.  The 4 wound heroes with low armor saves are also very vulnerable and I would prefer that they have access to Look Out Sir and any other protective measure I can get for them - such as bubble wrap.  So I don't see the fully-within as too much of a problem.

So I’ll address your points. 

 

1- agree not much point in doing all 60, it’s was primarily for illustrative purposes (it’s why I broke out by netters as they do their fair share of damage).

2. Semi Guaranteed damage - I don’t think it does, as getting a 6 to wound is tough, even with 60 in combat that’s only 5 wounds, it’s really not guaranteed at all.

3. Boss close - I used to just have a tail when I play rather than bubble wrapping. using  bubble wrapping with skarsnik model is surprisingly challenging. You need to move grots forward and leave a gap big enough for HIm to fit in. It’s definitely possible but just a different style of play to what I’ve been used to.

4. Yes I love the model too so may put it back in my list.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Donal Normally I am pretty quick to respond, but I decided to let my thoughts and your comments simmer a bit in the fungus-addled cavern I claim for a brain.

So with stuff like this I like to recommend a lets try this thing out before we drop to a final verdict or not.  The way that this ability is now worded we can completely run the average numbers since it triggers on a natural 6.  Also, the averages that we can calculate will be the same per attack for every moonclan unit.  The only synergy ****** that we can turn for this ability is simply the volume of to-wound rolls - which means volume of attacks & quality of attacks.  But all of that said, I still recommend that we get a body of experience of using this ability before we call it awesome or throw it into the trash.

So first, I don't want to sound like I was chastizing you for running the numbers on a unit of 60.  I understand why you did it.  My point was mainly that the results of that exercise are hard to digest because we will  likely never duplicate it in a game.  As soon as I saw this errata I crunched some quick numbers also.  I crunched the before/after change numbers in batches of 10 grot attacks because I felt that was a good solid number and you could easily multiply the results to get a solid idea for different unit sizes.  I still recommend running averages in smaller batches like that which you can scale up and down to different unit sizes and combat engagements - but maybe that is just my inner engineer speaking.

In regards to guaranteed damage, I agree with your comments and I probably did not express my point quite right.  Anything ability that works on just a natural 6 is going to be absurdly prone to the swings of luck.  There is nothing guaranteed about abilities like this.  Some games you will get nothing when dropping a bucket of 50 dice and other games you will toss a handful and end up with a ton of results.  It's all random and thats just how dice go.  But that was not exactly the point I was driving towards. 

What I meant about guaranteed damage was that when we do manage to proc this ability we can almost always count on that damage getting through onto the target.  Now, there are some units in the game that have decent mortal wound protection. but that is relatively rare.  Mortal Wounds are a big deal in this game and the previous ability could be stopped by a good armor save.  Now, we could use the grot horde bonus to boost this ability and hope that via volume we could get some double-damage hits through their armor saves, but if the armor save was really good we could get little benefit from this ability.  Mortal wounds change that quite a bit.  A Star Drake with a +save buff that is saving on 2s and rerolling 1s is still possible in this game and this command ability can now force wounds onto it where before it was unlikely.  That was my point.  So what I mean is that we can consider the bonus damage to be guaranteed for the most part when we trigger it - but we still need that trigger to happen.

In regards to bubble-wrap,  I agree that pulling it off completely requires a certain way of playing and is not necessarily easy due to unit activation order.  No arguments there.  Wrapping with one unit is going to be really hard.  It is a bit easier with more than one unit, but you might not want to keep units close together.  My point was more that these characters are very fragile and so when I use them I plan to use every defensive trick I can think of to grant them protection.  I still stand by that.  I would prefer that this ability was not fully-within, but given that I want this guy close to some sort of units anyways I think I can make that restriction work without too much issue.

So at the start I said we should play with this a bunch before we give a verdict and now I am going to skip past that.  With the caveat that I have not yet played any games with this new ability I will say that I am still positive about it.  I like it at the moment.  I think that in most cases it is going to result in less damage than previously (single use - lets ignore the insane exponential stacking).  But, I think the distinction of the new ability resulting in mortal wounds is something that moonclan did not have much access to outside of spells.  I think that is a notable change and it should not be discounted.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Here is another thought I wanted to express but I figured I would put it into it's own post.

This does not feel like a normal errata and here is what I mean by that:

First, lets all agree that it was absolutely absurd to be able to stack this ability and generate exponential damage.  I don't think anyone on these forums will argue that point.  But if this ability was restricted to a single use it was not at all game-breaking.  Even when Moonclan Grots could trigger the double damage on a 4+ this ability was not that insane.  Even in a world where you could use it from any Grot Warboss on the table by expending a command point this ability was nowhere on the spectrum of the nastier things you would encounter in this game.

Most of the command abilities with harmful stacking interactions so far have been fixed by simply adding a stacking restriction to the ability.  This ability was changed from top to bottom.  It was clarified when it is used (combat phase), it was clarified for the radius to be fully within and now has a provision for extra range from a general. It was changed to only work on natural dice rolls of 6.  And it was changed so that it generates extra mortal wounds rather than modifying the damage profile of the weapon.  So far I don't think any other warscroll command ability has been changed so extensively in a 2.0 errata.  Lord Croak has a spell that is arguably nastier than this ability in AoS2 and it was just slightly tweaked.

So why do I bring this up and what is my point?  My point is that GW has shown that with errata changes they generally take the path of least resistance and make the smallest change possible in errata.  In this case it would have been to simply add a clause to prevent stacking, but instead they rewrote the entire ability.

There are a lot of loud rumors for a Moonclan battletome coming soon and in my opinion this errata really leans credence to that opinion.  The reason I say that is because I think that the reason that this ability was changed completely is because this new wording was copied from the upcoming battletome document.  I feel that what happened here was that the exponential stacking issue forced them to put out an errata and that since they had already written a book or were in the process of rewriting it they decided that rather than slapping a stacking restriction they just decided to put out the new version.

One of the things that makes me say this is the new Nighthaunt book.  The new wording for this ability lines up with a lot of the abilities in that book.  I get the feeling that at least so far their idea is to push abilities towards these types of wordings in 2nd edition as they release books.  So I think we will see more abilities that trigger on natural dice results rather than X+ style abilities (although I expect a few of those will still be around) and more fully-within radius abilities.  This is all conjecture but I feel that it makes a lot of sense form a professional standpoint.

So take this entire post with a giant pile of salt - but for me it seems to really lend credence to the idea that Moonclan is getting a book soon.

 

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Question about the history of squigs. So I got in a pack of squigs(non-gnarly) and some squig hoppers and I noticed that the squigs and all the hoppers but one have copyright year of 2000 on their base slot inserts while the last hopper, who looks different from the rest, has 93 as the year. The squig of the 93 hopper looks like the gnarly squigs and I was wondering if they're that old too(I can't check my own gnarly squigs as they're assembled and painted). It's  question of little relevance, but I was just curious.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, bsharitt said:

Question about the history of squigs. So I got in a pack of squigs(non-gnarly) and some squig hoppers and I noticed that the squigs and all the hoppers but one have copyright year of 2000 on their base slot inserts while the last hopper, who looks different from the rest, has 93 as the year. The squig of the 93 hopper looks like the gnarly squigs and I was wondering if they're that old too(I can't check my own gnarly squigs as they're assembled and painted). It's  question of little relevance, but I was just curious.

I'll do my best to answer this.

To my knowledge there have only been 2 sets of cave squig miniatures that were produced over the years.  There is the set that came out in the 4th-5th edition army book.  This set has about 8-10 different cave squig sculpts and 5 of them are still available in finecast as the "gnarly" squigs.  This is the era where most models in the game were still metal and the old metal goblins were mainly sculpted by Kev Adams.  These goblins are a bit less on the mean-looking side and instead look quite happy and looney.  There was a set of about 5-6 squig hopper sculpts that came out at this time also.  One of the squig hoppers from this era was retained in finecast and is available in the current squig hopper set.

When 6th edition came out the squigs were resculpted.  They sculpted about 4 hoppers and 6 squigs.  Bear in mind that during this time Cave Squigs required a goblin handler per every 3 squigs so they were usually packaged as 3 squigs and 2 herders.  Squig Hoppers were purchased individually and fit into a unit of cave squigs somewhat like a fanatic so it was fine to have 4 sculpts.

In 8th edition they repackaged the squigs into blisters with just 5 squigs since you could field bigger blocks of them.  They also pacakged hoppers in a unit of 5 since they became somewhat similar to cavalry and were turned into their own unit.  In all editions previously they were upgrade models that attached to a squig herd.  They kept the old squigs available for sale as I expect they were still popular.  They kept a single old squig hopper model to pad out the hopper kit to 5 models.

To my knowledge the gnarly squigs and the 93 hoppers are the first cave squig models.  Previously to that squigs were just a collection of weird little monsters & bugs that looked more like a D&D pack of familiars than anything else.

  • Thanks 2
  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

So I took a moonclan heavy list to BOBO (used a troggoth hag with an artefact which made my list mixed destruction).

Had moderate success (4 wins, 1 loss), finished 13/87.

I took this list:

Hag (feather for -1 to hit)
Shaman
Fungoid shaman (general)

2x60 grots (spears)
20 grots

2x3 fanatics
Colossal

Shackles
Geminids


This was my first AoS2 Singles list, the main change was dropping warboss for another unit of fanatics. I have to say that I didn't miss the warboss and the fanatics definitely helped me in a few games. I would have liked the old double damage ability in one or two situations, but there was no specific time that I felt that i would have needed up to 5-10 mortal wounds in a combat. 

The only potential change that I'd consider in this list is to drop the colossal and reduce a unit of 60 to 40 for a frostlord. Not 100% that I want to take that far a detour from moonclan though. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/26/2018 at 7:35 AM, Skabnoze said:

Here is another thought I wanted to express but I figured I would put it into it's own post.

This does not feel like a normal errata and here is what I mean by that:

First, lets all agree that it was absolutely absurd to be able to stack this ability and generate exponential damage.  I don't think anyone on these forums will argue that point.  But if this ability was restricted to a single use it was not at all game-breaking.  Even when Moonclan Grots could trigger the double damage on a 4+ this ability was not that insane.  Even in a world where you could use it from any Grot Warboss on the table by expending a command point this ability was nowhere on the spectrum of the nastier things you would encounter in this game.

Most of the command abilities with harmful stacking interactions so far have been fixed by simply adding a stacking restriction to the ability.  This ability was changed from top to bottom.  It was clarified when it is used (combat phase), it was clarified for the radius to be fully within and now has a provision for extra range from a general. It was changed to only work on natural dice rolls of 6.  And it was changed so that it generates extra mortal wounds rather than modifying the damage profile of the weapon.  So far I don't think any other warscroll command ability has been changed so extensively in a 2.0 errata.  Lord Croak has a spell that is arguably nastier than this ability in AoS2 and it was just slightly tweaked.

So why do I bring this up and what is my point?  My point is that GW has shown that with errata changes they generally take the path of least resistance and make the smallest change possible in errata.  In this case it would have been to simply add a clause to prevent stacking, but instead they rewrote the entire ability.

There are a lot of loud rumors for a Moonclan battletome coming soon and in my opinion this errata really leans credence to that opinion.  The reason I say that is because I think that the reason that this ability was changed completely is because this new wording was copied from the upcoming battletome document.  I feel that what happened here was that the exponential stacking issue forced them to put out an errata and that since they had already written a book or were in the process of rewriting it they decided that rather than slapping a stacking restriction they just decided to put out the new version.

One of the things that makes me say this is the new Nighthaunt book.  The new wording for this ability lines up with a lot of the abilities in that book.  I get the feeling that at least so far their idea is to push abilities towards these types of wordings in 2nd edition as they release books.  So I think we will see more abilities that trigger on natural dice results rather than X+ style abilities (although I expect a few of those will still be around) and more fully-within radius abilities.  This is all conjecture but I feel that it makes a lot of sense form a professional standpoint.

So take this entire post with a giant pile of salt - but for me it seems to really lend credence to the idea that Moonclan is getting a book soon.

 

To back up your suspicions:

A while back when Skritch Spiteclaw (shadespire skaven warlord) was released, they accidentally gave him the current Skaven Warlord command ability, which was somewhat confusing at the time since it could be used off-turn. 

When we asked gw about it, they immediatedly changed it to the current Warlord on brood horror's command ability, and only reverted it back to a semblance of Spiteclaw's original rule now with the new edition. This indicated that they were pulling their rules (and rightly so) from some outside source, which later turned out to be aos2.

So yeah, I do believe you're onto something there ;)

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

What would you like to be added to the Moonclan grot faction when and if the battletome come?
I was thinking

Maybe some  "elite" grots, like greatsword or stormvermin

Some new squigs, "Spore Squigs" is an idea

Plastic squigs and squig hoppers and mangler

A named Hero (Like skarsnik, cuz he did not die in the endtimes :P)
Spell lore with endless spells (A badmoon could be cool)
 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Congratz said:

What would you like to be added to the Moonclan grot faction when and if the battletome come?
I was thinking

Maybe some  "elite" grots, like greatsword or stormvermin

Some new squigs, "Spore Squigs" is an idea

Plastic squigs and squig hoppers and mangler

A named Hero (Like skarsnik, cuz he did not die in the endtimes :P)
Spell lore with endless spells (A badmoon could be cool)
 

Embodiment of morka

 

a few names characters (including a wizard).

 

more squigs (maybe medium-large squig, smaller than mangler but bigger than cave). Maybe great cave squig size.

 

magic lore 

 

allegiance abilities related to cave/shrooms/moon?

 

better grots sound great but their role could be filled by the bigger squigs

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I was in charge of writing a Moonclan battletome then I would keep most of the traditional Night Goblin theme but build upon it.  I would also take some of the uniquely Night Goblin themes and turn them up to 11 - namely Squigs and Fungus.  I would also put an emphasis on making a lot of different heroes.  I have played full Night Goblin armies since the days of 5th ed Fantasy and the editions that I enjoyed the most were the ones that allowed Goblins to take a bigger allotment of heroes given that Goblin heroes are cheap and much weaker than standard heroes.  But while they were weaker in combat than most other heroes, they were actually pretty good for their cost when handed a big axe and stuffed into units.

 I won't get into exact specifics, but here are the basic concepts that I would play with:

1.  I would pull the Colossal Squig out of Forgeworld and into the core Moonclan army.  I would then give it a plastic kit and possibly make a few variant options - maybe a character mounted version.

2.  I would add a unit of moonclan riders on great cave squigs.  I would then rework the Mangler Squig unit box so that it is a plastic multi-kit box with these options:  Mangler Squig, Great Cave Squig Riders, Hero on Great Cave Squig (might make more than one hero option?).

3.  I would split the Moonclan Warlord with Great Cave Squig & Prodder into his own warscroll and make a new warscroll for the individual hero armed with other weapons.  I would probably bump the Warlord with Cave Squig up to have 5-6 wounds.  The smaller guys I would give some sort of unit buff ability and design them mainly to augment units of Moonclan grots.  Probably give them the current "Stab Em Good" command ability and then some aura buff ability and then give the Warlord with Squig a different command ability.

4.  I would create a new variant unit of Cave Squigs that are more of a ranged unit or short-ranged combined arms type of unit.  These would be sort of like the squig variants from Warhammer Online - where you had some that shot out spines and some that fired blasts of goo.

5.  I would change all of the squig units so that they each had an ability that gave them some sort of bonus for being near Squig Herders - just like Cave Squigs currently have.  This would be tailored to each squig unit and so it would differ.

6. I would create a Squig Herder hero.  This hero would function sort of like a Priest and have a variety of buff abilities that he can trigger on Squig units.  This guy would be similar to the Warhammer Online class.  A character primarily armed with a decent bow and a fairly crappy spear.  He would be able to buff squig units by feeding them various treats that cause different effects or throwing types of bait onto enemy units that cause the squigs to go nuts.

7.  I would create a Fungus Gatherer type of hero.  This guy is an expert in all things fungus and spends his time wandering deep in the caverns and gathering various types of fungus and cooking or distilling them into various concoctions.  In game he would function similar to a priest and hand out a variety of buffs to grot units by giving them various types of fungus brew.  He would have 1 or 2 native buff abilities and then I would probably make a fungus-ability chart similar to the Daughters of Khaine prayer chart.  I would also probably make most of his buffs semi-dangerous to the users.  So for example, most buffs would probably inflict 1 mortal wound (or maybe d3) onto the unit as not only do they have beneficial effects but they tend to be slightly poisonous.  That would make it dangerous to use on heroes, but most grot units have spare wounds and it would be worthwhile to take a few wounds for a good buff.  He could also potentially have abilities that debuff the enemy as he uses particularly nasty fungus bombs on them.

8.  I would create a new unit of grots that are part mushroom and similar to the Fungoid shaman.  Basically a unit of grots that either ate the wrong fungus, were effect by magic, ate too much fungus, etc.  These guys would be some weird hybrid of mushroom and grot and they would form a sort of elite grot unit.

9.  I would create a couple of Named characters.  One of them would be mounted on a particularly large squig.  It would be either a Colossal Squig or something between a Colossal and a Great cave squig (maybe in the 10 wound range).  This guy would be designed as a character meant to get into combat and stab things.  I would probably also make a named shaman.

Edited by Skabnoze
  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

One thing that might be an option for the "lots of heroes" would be to separate scarsnik out as the new "goblin warboss" then have the older models actually turn into unit champions.

So "The leader of this unit is a grot warboss who keeps the others inline they have 4 wounds and is armed with a moon-cutta or moon-slicer."

 

Edited by Malakree
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, ChatBatFun said:

I want to see a flying squig unit, maybe grots being held up in the air by balloon  squigs 

Wow, I hadn't made the possible connection before but maybe the rumoured sky pirate grots are also the rumoured moonclan update - flying around in fungus gas balloon dirigibles!   I haven't read the fiction fluff mentioning grot sky pirate (maybe "scrappers") so I could be way off base here but flying fungoid ballon squig-grots would be awesome! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...