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


  • Volunteers for the LVO! Let us know if you want to help out. Also, check out these gorgeous Warmachine and Hordes Colossals and Gargantuans we are giving away as prize support at the LVO, painted by Tyson Koch of Figure Painters.

blue-circle-woldwrath-01 blue-circle-woldwrath-02 blue-circle-woldwrath-03 blue-circle-woldwrath-04 blue-circle-woldwrath-05 Yellow-Merc-Galleon-05 Yellow-Merc-Galleon-04 Yellow-Merc-Galleon-03 Yellow-Merc-Galleon-02Red-Cryx-Kraken-04 Red-Cryx-Kraken-03 Red-Cryx-Kraken-02 Red-Cryx-Kraken-01

  • New classes added for the LVO! Aaron Lovejoy and Mary Profitt will be joining us, both extremely accomplished artists.
  • We opened up some more tickets for the 40k Champs for the LVO!
  • Pre-Orders for Oz Mats going up, now! These will ship the first week of January.
  • DzC shows off pics of the new named commander for the Scourge, Eden’s Dinosaur. Looks pretty cool and comes in a custom Desolator and the preview Salakhan’s custom Alexander command tank. They also have some very cool Dropfleet Commander images!

Eden's Dinosaur eden's dinosaur2


dropfleet1 dropfleet2 dropfleet3



  • Forge World actually lowers their prices…the end times are neigh! 10 models for 35 pounds sterling. They also show off the new Solar Auxilia flamer section.

forgeworld infantry


Flamer-Section-1 Flamer-Section-2

  • Dark Age releases a new model, hood the executioner.



  • Eternal Crusade posts up game play footage. Looks a lot like across between team fortress and Space Marine.

  • Heavy Gear shows off some of the developing Beta rules for HG Blitz 2nd ed. They also show off a painted version of the Chibi Hunter Christmas special model.

heavygear1 heavygear2

  • TGITG show off the new Lady Segrith model with alternate head.

tgitg1 tgitg2


  • Community member Pierce Fraser has launched his project, a new RPG called HVT SVNT Dracones, a SciFi anthropomorphic style game. It looks pretty cool, give it a look and pick it up if it appeals to you.

Upcoming ITC Events

  •  Getting excited for TSHFT in January.

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.

  •  The next 40k campaign is rumored to be Dark Angels vs. Chaos, round 2: The slap fight continues!
  • The next Endtimes installment to be coming out in the very near future.

Rant Session

Tactics Corner

Rules Lawyer

  • FW Knights in a Knight Detachment. How many FW Knights can you take in these?
  • BA Formation
  • Zhardsnark
  • Blood Angels can use their HQ Chappy to unlock multiple FW Relic units such as Sicarans.

Completed Commissions


List Review

Blood Rush 1

Mephiston – 175

Priest – Bolt Pistol, Valour’s Edge – 81

Command Squad – Jump Packs, 3x Melta Guns – 155

10x Death Company – Jump Packs, Power Fist, Power Sword – 270

Furioso Dread – Drop Pod, Frag Cannon, Hvy Flamer – 165

10x Tactical – Rhino, Heavy Flamer, Flamer, 2x Hand Flamer – 220

10x Tactical – Rhino, Heavy Flamer, Flamer, 2x Hand Flamer – 220

8x Assault Squad – Rhino, 2x Melta Gun, Vet Sgt, Power Sword – 181

10x Assault Squad – Rhino, 2x Melta Gun, Vet Sgt, Power Sword – 215

Sicaran Battle Tank- Legacies of Glory: Battle of Sarosh (1 turn skyfire/interceptor) – 165


Blood Rush 2 

Mephiston – 175

Priest – Bolt Pistol, Valour’s Edge – 81

10x Death Company – Jump Packs, Power Fist, Power Sword – 270

8x Vanguard – Drop Pod, 2x Plasma Pistol, 2x Power Sword, Power Fist, Storm Shield – 282

10x Tactical – Rhino, Heavy Flamer, Flamer, Hand Flamer, Melta Bomb – 215

10x Tactical – Rhino, Heavy Flamer, Flamer, Hand Flamer, Melta Bomb – 215

10x Tactical – Rhino, Heavy Flamer, Melta, Combi Melta – 215

5x Assault Squad – Jump Packs, 2x Melta Gun, 2x Plasma Pistol

Javelin Attack Speeder – Multi Melta, Twin Linked Lascannon ( Reclusiarch is gone so not sure which HQ will allow 2 Relic of the Armoury)

Sicaran Battle Tank- Legacies of Glory: Battle of Sarosh (1 turn skyfire/interceptor) – 165

(In both lists Meph and the Priest either go with Rhino Assault squad or the Vanguard Drop Squad)



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. Avatar
    bigpig December 23, 2014 1:20 am #

    best use of “crotch first” in any podcast award goes to…..

  2. Avatar
    Ghost Valley December 23, 2014 7:05 am #

    Thanks for the review.

    I’ll admit to struggling with putting lists together for the new BA and just in general for 7th edition. I am a 40k grandpa as I’ve been playing for close to 20 years and still find myself gravitating to mono codex lists and such. I dont have an issue with allies or multiple detachments, I’m just not drawn to them…I keep trying to refine a list straight from the dex and when I hear people talking about how they cant wait to ally 1 priest on a bike ( with minimum 55 point scout squad) into their Super Friends list, I have to hold my tongue lest I start on a “kids these days” rant.

    With my local games, I’ve been finding rhinos a lot more survivable with the 7th ed. vehicle rules (I still dream about 3rd edition Rhino Rush) – they end up getting hull pointed to death more than exploded outright and I’ll often stay in them until I’m forced out. But I dont go up against a lot of Lord’s of War and can see how rhinos/razors would make a great 1st blood one shot one kill target.

    I’ve been looking at making the list more MSU – 5 man squads or trying to find the mix between drop pods and transports but for most elite units it is cheaper to field jump packs over pods. Jump Pack deep strike is not as great for multiple melta drops though as you cant control when they come down, and it seems to me as though you would require Dante or another reserves manipulator and even then it’s still not the most solid tactic.

    But I’ll keep plugging away and probably end up bringing some anachronistic list to soft serve up at LVO. You’ll recognize me with my cane and old man sweater! Haha.

  3. Avatar
    Novastar December 23, 2014 9:15 am #

    How could you not remember who Andy Chambers is?? He’s like the Ron Jeremy of wargaming

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 23, 2014 9:54 am #

      I remember who is he, I just forgot if it was he or Rick Priestly that was the man on the project.

  4. Avatar
    Novastar December 23, 2014 9:51 am #

    I think that many flamers is actually a hindrance, in 7th you place each template down and resolve the effects so after the heavy flamer is resolved there will be a gap of models to where the flamer and hand flamers may have no targets when it’s time to resolve their hits/wound pools

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 23, 2014 9:54 am #

      Good point.

    • Avatar
      Ghost Valley December 23, 2014 10:05 am #

      Against big hordes, with good model placement you could do work. But against regular squad size with 4+ saves or worse, it is probably not the best use of points (20 for both hand flamers). Will probably change that.

    • Avatar
      Eldarain December 24, 2014 9:52 am #

      Templates actually have an exception to that rule. You don’t start rolling to wound until all the hits from all the Flamers are allocated.

      Specifically the “multiple templates” rule in the BRB page 173

      The total number of hits from a squad using multiple templates is determined at the same time.

      Once this has been done, you can continue rolling to wound for each separate hit pile.

  5. Avatar
    Hotsauceman1 December 23, 2014 10:11 am #

    Can Calvary go in droppods?
    If so, Thunderwolf lord in a droppod going turn one

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 23, 2014 10:53 am #

      No, they cannot.

      • Avatar
        Hotsauceman1 December 23, 2014 11:21 am #


    • Avatar
      AbusePuppy December 25, 2014 10:10 pm #

      Calvary can only go in the Gospels.

  6. Avatar
    Garrett December 23, 2014 10:33 am #

    So you had Zhardsnark in your show notes under Rules Lawyer. What were you going to say about him? I am quite interested.

  7. Avatar
    Pascal Roggen December 23, 2014 11:33 am #

    a fun part on the different cerastus knights rarity issue.
    it’s per army, so if you take a knight detachment with three knights and took another cerastus as a lord of war, you could take two archerons and 2 or any other kind of knight, including two different or the same cerastus[castigator or lancer]

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 23, 2014 11:47 am #

      Yeah, but then the issue is how do you make the initial Knight Detachment as it itself is illegal.

  8. Avatar
    Novastar December 23, 2014 11:54 am #

    Another dirty trick is taking a fast vindicator and giving it the legacy of glory Keylek so it’s main cannon has the ignores cover rule

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 23, 2014 1:20 pm #

      Yeah, we were looking at that one, too.

      • Avatar
        Novastar December 23, 2014 2:46 pm #

        I’ve considered giving it to my fellblade also lol

  9. Avatar
    Pascal Roggen December 23, 2014 12:06 pm #

    the lancer is still rare , the archeron or the castigator. at most you could get two of one kind under 2k points[if you have a four knight army.

    you could take 5!! of the paladin…don’t bunch all the cerastus knights into one thing. they are 3 distinct types.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 23, 2014 1:20 pm #

      What is your logic for a limit of two? Because you could take 3 and still have less than any other type so long as you discount the 0 point.

  10. Avatar
    Dr.insanotron December 23, 2014 2:13 pm #

    The BA rules seem pretty darn clear to me. If the model with the homer is in a raven you then measure from its hull. They don’t have to start the turn on the board for there ability to work. And the only BA units that can come in from deep strike reserve turn one is a drop pod. So the real question is does both the pod and the unit in it count as arriving from deep strike or just the pod

    Either way have one or two units assault turn one isnt game breaking especially when you take into account what other codexs are capable of

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 23, 2014 5:27 pm #

      Do the units assaulting out of reserves have to be all BA Faction? If not, that is nuts. Stick Draigo or similar into a Pod with the unit and assault turn 1…wow. That is ludicrous.

      • Avatar
        Dr.insanotron December 23, 2014 6:26 pm #

        Yes they all have to be BA faction

        • Avatar
          Dr.insanotron December 23, 2014 6:29 pm #

          What is says is they have to have the BA faction. So maybe that’s what you guys should make a ruling on

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 23, 2014 7:48 pm #

          OK, good. Still, Meph to the face turn 1 with no stopping him is still savage if it goes that way, lol!

          • Avatar
            Dr.insanotron December 23, 2014 8:03 pm

            Not compared to the lists that are already out there. The riles are clear how it works

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 24, 2014 11:02 am

            The rules aren’t actually clear how it works or we wouldn’t be debating it =p

          • Avatar
            Archon-Kalifex December 24, 2014 6:31 am

            So is this a special rule from the BA book that allows assault out of Deep Strike?

          • Avatar
            War Corgi December 24, 2014 9:35 am

            Not sure why their is so much trepidation with this particular formation. In 7th edition, going second often means that at least one if not more units are destroyed before you get a chance to move. Why quibble over the method of destruction; whether assaulted or shot to pieces the unit is just as dead.

            The community has been asking for a rebalancing of assault and shooting. It seems that GW has done just that with this codex and formation. I am all in favor of it being included in all formats. Like has been said before, this is certainly not the scariest thing going in 40k right now.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 24, 2014 11:14 am

            You make fair points, and I see the argument. The issue is that unlike with shooting where you typically get an armor or cover save, can hide, etc. with this players get upset because you enter into melee uncontested and melee is often more deadly than shooting. If you have a unit of Death Company with Mephiston, or something similar, it gets pretty brutal, rapidly. And while some players feel that there is a discrepancy between assault and shooting (I don’t particularly agree, but anyway) a single formation doesn’t really bring balance to the force, so to speak.

        • Avatar
          Dr.insanotron December 24, 2014 10:15 am #

          It’s a rule of one of there formations

          • Avatar
            Archon-Kalifex December 24, 2014 12:16 pm

            Ok cool. I was just wondering because it says explicitly in the BRB that units may not assault on the turn they arrive via Deep Strike and no one was saying how they were able to do it except that the drop pods were special.

  11. Avatar
    iNcontroL December 23, 2014 5:35 pm #

    Sssshhhh 😉 nice cast as always! Miss you idiots

  12. Avatar
    AbusePuppy December 23, 2014 8:26 pm #

    My understanding of the Knights is that you can’t take MORE of any particular FW Knight than you can of any other particular type of Knight. So you could run an Acheron, Cerastus, and Magaera together in a detachment, but not just an Achaeron by itself (because then it would be the most common and thus not legal.) It does not apply, however, to the Knights when taken as Lords of War.

    As far as the BA thing goes, I think allowing the turn 1 assault from BA units only (which I believe the formation specifies?) seems reasonable. Running the formation is a major risk and has some very notable problems (like just failing the reserve roll) and really boxes you into a very particular list. BA has some good assault units, but not unstoppable ones, so that seems like a fair thing.

    However, I think the “no scatter” clause is intended to not function on the turn the Teleport Homers arrive, which means there is still at least some risk to the strategy.

    • Avatar
      Ciaran December 23, 2014 9:03 pm #

      That is how I also interpreted the knight rule, but now that I’m rereading it again I can see where all the confusion and ambiguity is coming from.

      Is the ruling of take however many of the same one you want and no others is going to stick I’m calling forgeworld tomorrow.

    • Avatar
      Pascal Roggen December 24, 2014 4:11 am #

      if you want another teleport homer that works the turn it comes in, the caestus assault rams homer works immediately [it has it’s own rules on it’s page]

      slightly more seriously though, the rule is pretty explicit, it doesn’t even specify using the teleport homer with it’s, it’s using the triangulation special rule which just needs homers to be within range. Two of them work faster together??

      it’s a bit like if there was a rule granting a 5+ save you could use after failing an armour save, but you had to be in a unit with 2 priests. sure they hand out feel no pain, but you could take this new 5+ save even from instant death attacks as there is no limitation on it.

      because you aren’t using the feel no pain special rule.

      Just like you aren’t using the teleport homers rules.

      • Avatar
        AbusePuppy December 24, 2014 7:29 am #

        Could very well be, I’m not as sure on that last part- I’d need to get a better read on the rule itself.

    • Avatar
      Greg December 27, 2014 12:32 am #

      That is also how I read it from the very beginning. After listening to the podcast, I re-read it – and it still reads the exact same way. You can apply it without “discounting” or ignoring any logical rule. Once you have chosen the Knights for your detachment, check each type of knight and whether it has the rule. If it’s a paladin or errant, no problem. If it’s a lancer, archeron or castigator, you must have at least one other type of knight for each of the forgeworld Knights. Thus, the following rules will always apply: a) you can never have a knight detachment of a single FW knight; and b) you can never have 2 of the same FW knight in a knight detachment. No problems taking 2 different FW Knights or one of each. Howeve,r it does not make sense that you can take 3 of the same without making up something else that is not written in the rules (and also makes less logical sense when considering the fluff description).

      Note that this has an effect on every army, as any army can technically take a knight detachment as an extra detachment (whereas only Imperial factions can take one as a LoW, which can be any single knight). I will not suggest I know what FW was intending, but the rarity rule does help limit other non-Imperial factions cherry picking a single FW knight (most people would agree that they are far more powerful than a standard knight, except maybe the lancer due to the lack of a second gun).

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 27, 2014 10:32 am #

        However, logically, if you take 2 or 3 of the same type of rare Knight, you still do not have more of it than any other type of Knight, unless you say 1>0 in which case you can’t take any rare Knights without breaking the rule. That is not reading anything that isn’t there. For example, I have 3 Knight Casitagtors. Do I have more Castigators than any other type of Knight? No. You therefore have fulfilled the letter of the rule, again, assuming you do not count 0. It is a seriously poorly written rule.

        That said, I understand your take on it and I think that is the intent of the rule, but that is certainly not clear in the language of the rule.

        • Avatar
          Greg December 27, 2014 12:57 pm #

          Just want to be clear that I fully respect you as a player and leader in the field, so this is less of an argument and more of an attempt to arrive at the correct interpretation (if that is even possible).

          With that being said, I’m struggling to see how 1 is not clearly more than 0, or why that is not a logical statement. If you have 1 apple and no oranges, I think you can safely say you have more apples than oranges. You don’t need to have at least one of something before you can say you have more of somethjng else. I also don’t understand why you say if you follow the 1>0 principle, you can then never take any rare Knights. If you have 1 Castigator and 1 Paladin, where is there a conflict with the rules? The rule is “…you may not have more [insert Rare Knight name] in your army than you have Knights of other kinds.” I may be missing something, but if you have the same number (see: 1) of rare Knights as you have any other knight (see: 1 Codex or FW knight), you would be doing exactly what is required to take a rare knight in a knight detachment. I think that’s the point that is most unclear to me from the flow of the various arguments. And I certainly agree that there are many poorly written rules and this one could certainly be spelled out to be more obvious as to intent and application.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 27, 2014 5:25 pm

            No offense taken at all, Greg, feel free to disagree with me.

            So, the rule says you may not have more of a rare type Knight than other types. So, taken literally if I have 1 rare Knight I must also have 1 of every other type of Knight (so that there is not 1 rare knight more than any other type of knight). However, that is clearly impossible as there are more Knight types than slots (or points) in a Knight detachment. So, that doesn’t work.

            So now, assuming you reject the concept that you have to have one of each, and can take 1 rare type Knight but not “more” than any other type, you could still take 1-3 of the same rare Knight and not have more than any other type as you reject the premise that 0 counts, which I think you have to.

            However, the moment you take a different type of Knight, you know are locked into 0-1 of a rare Knight as you cannot take a second as you would then have more rare knights than other types (unless you utilize the LoW slot in a CAD or similar detachment as the rare rule even more annoyingly says “army” instead of detachment). Therefore, you could take 2 of a Rare Knight in a Knight Detachment, 1 of another rare and 1 in your LoW slot that is the same. So convoluted and badly written.

            Anyway, long story short, it is muddy as hell. If you play it as taking essentially 0-1 of any rare Knight, you are good to go.

  13. Avatar
    xthexclincherx December 26, 2014 5:42 am #

    I don’t quite understand how this Blood Angels teleport homer thing is getting so confusing… first of all, doesn’t the teleport homer only work for Terminators (wasn’t that what it was created for?) Also, would you allow Marneus Calgar’s teleport homer to work in a Land Raider – or what about a Tactical Squad in a Rhino? What about in a building; would you measure from the edges of a building? What about a Chaos icon in a Rhino… you can’t summon using it there…

    The point is, a precedence has been set by all these other examples of models physically being on the field, outside of a building or transport, for items to work.

    Since the Stormravens can come on the table turn 1, the need for the Tactical Squads to disembark before their teleport homers can be used means a turn 1 charge isn’t going to happen (which seems more in line with the rest of the rules preventing turn 1 charges).

    Just throwing my input out there.

Leave a Reply