Signals from the Frontline: Warhammer 40K and General Gaming News, Rumors, Tactics and Comedy!

signals from the Frontline

Show Notes



  • Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube!  Join our Forums, too! If you would like to be a guest on the show, email Reece at
  • We sell tabletop games and supplies at 20% off! Hit us up for your next gaming order at or visit our webstore at


  • Last Episode we said Warmachine Weekend was in Florida, but Reecius got confused in his old age and got confused. The event is in St. Louis, MO. Sorry for the confusion!
  • The results of the vote to change Invisibility or not came in.

Vote to Change Invisibility Results

  • GW has new BA Terminators and a Terminator Librarian up for Pre-Order! Shoot your orders in to
  • Toughest Girls in the Galaxy are now shipping some of their hotly anticipated models!

tgitg2 tgitg

  • Gamecraft releases a new SciFi building and it looks slick! 15mm scale

gamecraft2 gamecraft


  • Pathfinder releases some pre-painted minis of their Iconic Characters.

pathfinder6 pathfinder5 pathfinder4 pathfinder3 pathfinder2 pathfinder1

  • DzC shows off a new named character Hellhog for the Resistance, and a piece of art showing off the bridge of an Avenger ship.


  • Colockwork Goblin shows a new release, a little walker tank that looks pretty slick.

clockwork goblin

  • Heavy Gear posts a picture of their special December release, a Chibi Hunter, and it’s so cute!

chibi hunter

  • Privateer Press unveils Iron Kingdoms Unleashed Adventure Pack.

AdventureKit box-bottom

Upcoming ITC Events

  •  Today is the last day to get your TSHFT hotel room, so be sure to do that if you want to go. It is in January and is an ITC event.

Rumors: The Rumor Section is gathered from the web and is not in any way information we receive from  any manufacturer nor is it necessarily accurate. This section of the podcast is intended for entertainment purposes only.

  •  Pics all over the net of what appear to be new Necrons. These may be conversions but they look pretty awesome. Warriors have a new gun that looks like the Immortal’s gun. And, there is a new Lord that is awesome looking, but may be a conversion. Also, rules for a new Necron Detachment are floating around.
  • Awesome art from the new book that looks amazing.
  • Rumors indicate that Necrons are inbound but not likely before X-Mas.
  • Not many new models, but supposedly a new Lord, possibly a Cryptek and the Dex is said to be really big, almost Marine sized, with lots of LoW, and Formations.
  • Rumors indicate no Supplement for them, but possibly alternate detachments in their book itself.
  • Campaign book to follow for them.
  • Rumors about a ton of new BA formations on the way.

Rant Session

  •  In list discussion.

Tactics Corner

  •  DzC UCM vs. PHR

Rules Lawyer

  •  Does a LoW or Fortification count as a Detachment?

Completed Commissions

Chaos Characters, painted to a level 3 standard!

IMG_0203 IMG_0205 IMG_0192 IMG_0190

List Review


IG 1850pts
Unit Description Size Cost
Punisher Pask 1 230
Plasmsacutioner 1 185
Yarrick 1 145
Priest 1 25
PCS Flamer x 2 5 40
Platoon Squad L.Cannon, M.Bombs 10 75
Platoon Squad L.Cannon, M.Bombs 10 75
Platoon Squad L.Cannon 10 70
Conscripts 20 60
Veterans M.Gun x 2, H.Flamer 10 90
Taurox 1 50
Fast Attack
Vendetta 1 170
Vulture Punishers 1 155
Heavy Support
Wyvern 1 65
Knight Formation
Knight Acheron 1 415
Totals 74 1850


About Reecius

The fearless leader of the intrepid group of gamers gone retailers at Frontline Gaming!

44 Responses to “Signals from the Frontline: Warhammer 40K and General Gaming News, Rumors, Tactics and Comedy!”

  1. droozy December 16, 2014 11:25 am

    Steve cheated me in the exact same way. In all fairness, it wouldn’t have made a difference in the outcome of the game.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 16, 2014 3:12 pm

      He’s a dirty rat, see!

  2. Garrett December 16, 2014 11:40 am

    I think one of the confusion things about if LoW or Fortifications take up a detachment is how you word the list restrictions on the LVO/BAO tournament Page:

    2 Detachments Total. You may take any 2 detachments you wish, but may not repeat any detachments.

    0-1 CAD
    0-1 Codex Specific Detachment
    0-1 Allied Detachment
    0-1 Formation
    0-1 Fortification
    0-1 Lord of War

    Because you list Fortification and Lord of War as a 0-1 option with the other detachments, it looks like you guys are considering fortifications and LoW’s as their own detachments

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 16, 2014 3:13 pm

      Ah, very good point! Yes, we actually may have contributed to the confusion, lol. Doh!

  3. Hotsauceman1 December 16, 2014 11:51 am

    Reece, they dont allow old people in the club

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 17, 2014 11:09 am

      Damn! How am I supposed to do the Dougie, now?

  4. Hotsauceman1 December 16, 2014 11:58 am

    God dam 30mm bases…..
    Damnit Damnit Damnit. I dont want to rebase all my models

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 16, 2014 12:05 pm

      I’m not rebasing mine, I can tell you that, haha.

  5. Novastar December 16, 2014 1:37 pm

    Super heavies can’t jink, pg 638 digital rulebook

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 16, 2014 2:47 pm

      Good catch!

  6. TinBane December 16, 2014 3:27 pm

    It’s Andy Chambers, rather than Rick Priestley working on Dropfleet Commander. And that’s a work in progress name.

    • TinBane December 16, 2014 3:27 pm

      Awesome podcast as always though!

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 17, 2014 11:10 am

        Damn, got a few facts wrong in this one.

  7. Pedrospartan December 16, 2014 4:06 pm

    It is possible to take an all FW knight detachment you just can’t double up on any one type of knight. That’s the rules per the forgeworld knight PDFs. Is it changed for LVO? Or did you just miss read the rule Reece?

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 16, 2014 4:17 pm

      Hmm, that is actually a good question…I had not thought about it that way.

      • Pedrospartan December 16, 2014 4:34 pm

        I just ordered my Acheron to accompany my Lancer at the LVO. When I heard you talking about the knight detachment my heart dropped.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 16, 2014 5:11 pm

          That is actually a really good question, we will hit up FW and ask them.

          • Pedrospartan December 16, 2014 5:48 pm

            Can you let me know the answer you get from them? cause it’s a pretty big deal for me if I gotta change that out. Also really disappointing.

          • TinBane December 16, 2014 6:56 pm

            RAW, it certainly names each knight by name, rather than saying you can’t have more FW knights than other types of knight.

          • Adam
            Adam ( December 16, 2014 11:22 pm

            Yeah, as it’s worded it’s definitely on a per-type basis, not by chassis.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 17, 2014 11:12 am

            Their email wasn’t working last night, I kept getting it kicked back to me.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 17, 2014 11:14 am

            Well, here’s the text: Cerastus Knight-Acherons may be
            chosen as part of a Codex: Imperial Knights army as you
            would other types of Knight. However, owing to their rarity
            in the 41st Millennium, you may not have more Cerastus
            Knight-Acherons in your army than you have Knights of
            other kinds.

            Taken literally, you can’t have more of the Cerastus than other Knights. 1>0, so per RAW, you would have to take a Knight Paladin or Errant to have a Cerastus at all. What is your fellas’ counter to that?

          • Pedrospartan December 17, 2014 2:45 pm

            Literally by RAW you can’t have more cerustus lancer,Acheron or castigator than any other does not just say cerestus or cerestus knight. By RAW there is nothing stopping you from running a lancer and Acheron without paladin or errant.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 17, 2014 4:17 pm

            How so?

            I guess I am just stuck on that more of Knight X than another kind. 1>0. However, that is pretty rigid. You could interpret that to mean: if you take a single Knight Cerastus X, you have to take every other type of knight, also to have an equal amount, which is pretty silly.

            Another way to read it is as you can’t take a second Knight Cerastus type X before you have another type of Knight, so then you could only ever have 1 of any type of FW Knight with that rule.

            Or, you can read it as you can take 1-3 Cerastus type X, but cannot take more than any other chassis if you mix Chassis…which is bizarre and seems to go counter to the intent. haha, you can take 3 in a detachment if they are all the same, but not if you mix in a Paladin.

          • Pedrospartan December 17, 2014 3:09 pm

            This is a directly copied and pasted off the FW pdf.

            Using the Cerastus Knight-Acheron in your army in games of Warhammer 40,000
            Codex: Imperial Knights: Cerastus Knight-Acherons may be chosen as part of a Codex: Imperial Knights army as you would other types of Knight. However, owing to their rarity in the 41st Millennium, you may not have more Cerastus Knight-Acherons in your army than you have Knights of other kinds.

            So you interpreted “you may not have more Cerastus Knight-Acherons in your army than you have Knights of other kinds.” As “you may not have more Cerastus Knight-Acherons in your army than you have Knights of other chassis”?

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 17, 2014 4:14 pm

            What differentiation is there between “kind” and “chassis” in your mind?

          • Pedrospartan December 17, 2014 6:27 pm

            “Kind” i read as model/unit. I never read it as chasis because I haven’t read anything that indicates that should pay attention to the chasis. The chasis is simply part of the name.
            The magera knight has the same rule about being a rare knight, so by following the chasis logic I wouldn’t be able to take an errant or a palidin in the same detachment because they are all on the same chasis.

          • TinBane December 17, 2014 7:00 pm

            Let’s step through it.
            Assuming I have 1 Cerastus Knight-Lancer. When is that invalid, according to this rule?

            It’s invalid, only if there are no knights of any other type present.

            So, assuming I have 1 knight, of any type (including one with this rule, itself), isn’t that a valid list? Because there are not more Cerastus Knight-Lancers than there are say Cerastus Knight-Acherons. Likewise there are not more Cerastus Knight-Acherons than there are Cerastus Knight-Lancers.

            Functionally, this seems designed to prevent you just spamming Cerastus Knight-Acheron with two or three of them in a list. At least that’s my ruling.

            Otherwise, they would have made it a “relic knight” rule or something, and said that you can’t have more knights with the relic knight rule than knights without.

            As it is, they specifically name the models. Chassis as far as I can see, doesn’t come into it.

          • Pedrospartan December 18, 2014 9:11 am

            So this is the conversation I had with FW over email.

            “By type do you mean chasis? So I’d first have to take a
            Paladin or an errant before taking any of the cerestus knights ? I was reading as though I could take an Acheron and a Lancer both being a different unit. I just couldn’t take 2 lancer because of the rule about them being rare.

            My army I was building was going to be
            A space marine detachment
            A allied knight detachment that was
            1x knight Lancer
            1x knight Acheron

            Can I legally do that?
            Sent from my iPhone”

            “Hi Peter.

            As an example, if you had a Lancer but you wanted another one you would first have to take another type of Knight such as a Castigator or Styrix.”

          • Pedrospartan December 22, 2014 2:32 pm

            So have you figured out what you’re doing for the LVO?

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 22, 2014 4:12 pm

            We’re working it out. The language is so muddy. I believe we will allow 1 of any type (meaning chassis or variant) but cannot have 2 of the same with the limiting rule if you do not have an equal amount another type. However, if you have only 1 of the same type, you can max it out. That feels so weird though as the rule is meant to show how rare they are.

          • Pedrospartan December 22, 2014 5:00 pm

            So my list would be illegal?

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 22, 2014 8:18 pm

            I don’t know what your list is.

          • Pedrospartan December 22, 2014 5:23 pm

            By saying chasis or variant you’ve thrown me off what do you mean by variant? Does variant mean unit or just a double down on saying chasis? I’m sorry if this is a dumb question but I need a direct answer on if my list will be legal or not. I will get four days over Christmas to build/paint my army. Past that I don’t have much guarantied time to finish my list up.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 22, 2014 8:19 pm

            No worries, it is confusing. When I say type I mean Archaeon, or Lancer, etc. So, you could take one of each.

  8. Umbo December 16, 2014 4:13 pm

    Rules lawyer for you Reece, RE the sporefield formation Nids.. the ‘new’ spore mines.. Can they deep strike or do they have to walk on? RAW I think they have to walk on but makes no real sense. Wondering how you are playing it for the LVO (same for gargoyles in skyblight). Makes sporefield very useless if they have to walk on…



    • Reecius
      Reecius December 17, 2014 11:15 am

      We will hit that on the next show, thanks for the submission.

  9. Eldarain December 16, 2014 8:24 pm

    Sanctuary 101 boxed set and campaign please.

    • Novastar December 16, 2014 9:29 pm

      Give me your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle

  10. Pascal Roggen December 16, 2014 11:01 pm

    yeah, the wording for knights mans you should be able to to take two lancers and 2 castigators… or any other combination of two.

    but the only way to pull that off would be, to take a lord of war cerastus variant and then three in another detachment

    • Adam
      Adam ( December 16, 2014 11:23 pm

      Not that anyone here is planning on that…

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 17, 2014 11:16 am

      How are you getting that? Am I reading a different document?

      A Knight detachment is 1-3 Knights. You cannot take more Cerastus than other types of Knights. 1 is more than 0.

      Are you reading it as the 0 not counting towards that rule?

      • CNitram December 22, 2014 8:32 pm

        Let’s look at this as a basic logic scenario, using the “If, Then” format.

        “Codex: Imperial Knights” = Choice A
        “Other Armies of the Imperium” = Choice B

        A is exclusive to B, meaning you can’t have both A & B within the same detachment.

        **From the FW Rules PDF for Cerastus Knight-Acheron**

        Choice A

        “Codex: Imperial Knights: Cerastus Knight-Acherons may be chosen as part of a Codex: Imperial Knights army as you would other types of Knight. However, owing to their rarity in the 41st Millennium, you may not have more Cerastus Knight-Acherons in your army than you have Knights of other kinds.”

        Choice B

        “Other Armies of the Imperium Factions: A Cerastus Knight-Acheron may be taken as a Lords of War choice for any faction that is a part of the Armies of the Imperium (see the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook).”


        If you want to take a Knight Army (Detachment, Primary or ‘Allied”), then see choice A and its criteria.

        In this case, you can never take more that 1 FW Cerastus in a 1-3 Knight Detachment.

        1 FW & 1 GW legal
        1 FW & 2 GW legal
        2 FW & 1 GW illegal


        If you want to take a FW Cerastus in your Imperial Faction Army, then see choice B and its criteria.

        In this case, the FW Cerastus no longer exists as an entry within Codex: IK; It becomes a LOW entry for w/e Imperial Faction Codex comprises the army.

        Since a standard CAD has options for ‘0-1’ Lords of War, the player must decide whether to include one to start with, followed by which LOW entry from his/her available options, to ultimately include.

        Because a FW Cerastus is now a LOW entry for Imperials within the choice B setup, it is thus legal to include in your Imperial Faction Army List.

        I hope this helps to clarify and not further confuse.

        – Chris

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 23, 2014 10:29 am

          No, this is where I was going with it, too. Thanks for taking the time to post this.