User talk:Murdaface/INSANITY WOLF

The fuck am I looking at. - Biggus Berrus (talk) 19:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I have no clue. I can only assume it's someone trying to explain how to make an assault-focused list in the edition least suited for assault. --Newerfag (talk) 19:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Wow. Impatient forum dwellers who can't get that something is a work in progress, and that some folk could give a flying fuck as to how suitable a game is to a particular play style. --Murdafce (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

I concur. Though he'd actually explain where he got the idea for this. - Ben (talk) 20:33, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, I know that it's obviously named after an Advice Dog spinoff, which can't possibly be a good sign under any circumstance.--Newerfag (talk) 06:12, 18 February 2015 (UTC)

Drafted an Unbound list around Murderfang and Lonewolf Terminators that worked decently. It fits how I play 40k, so I've been trying a similar approach with other factions, trying to find non-Unbound ways to get similar results. The name is a reference to Murderfang because I run him as my Warlord.--Murdafce (talk) 20:40, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

With all due respect, an assault-heavy list is not exactly something that could be called notable enough to justify a whole article to itself. It's not cheesy enough to require a dedicated counter, nor is it even particularly original (as anyone who runs Orks, Khorne-heavy Chaos lists, Grey Knights, and Tyranids can attest to). And for the record, insulting your readers is a great way to get yourself disregarded, regardless of how fun or neat your idea might be. In any event, I've moved it onto your userspace and linked it to your talk page. When it's ready, you can move it back to the main namespace--Newerfag (talk) 00:42, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Damn, you have a point. Didn't think of that. --Murdaface (talk) 01:01, 18 February 2015 (UTC)