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

signals from the Frontline

Watch the replay of the Videocast, here.

Show Notes



  • Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, Twitch, 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


  • Wargames Con is right around the corner! Going to be a blast. The new Space Marine book will be legal there.


  • BAO has some space left in the Warzone, Malifaux, DzC tournaments and the hobby seminars!


  • Saturday is the last day to get your 25% off pre-order specials in for the Space Marine codex and Devastators. Looks like next week will be the new Terminator Librarian.


  • Clockwork Goblin show off the US Coyote Light Walker.

coyote light walker 2 coyote light walker 3 coyote light walker

  • Heavy Gear show renders of the Spitting Cobra, Support Cobra and King Cobra Gears.

heavy gear

  • Victoria show off some very cool looking new female infantry heads.


  • TGITG show off a new sculpt of their Mantis model, and she looks creepy/awesome! Also, a painted version of the female mech, a Davidian model and Katrina Zerga.

tgitg4tgitg1 tgitg2



  • Siren miniatures unveil some new models.

siren1 siren2 siren3

  • Dream Forge releases the Eisenkern Command Squad and Right Hand Vulkan Cannon. Gorgeous models!

dfg-in-004-poplet-04 dfg-in-004-poplet-05 dfg-in-004-poplet-06 dfg-in-004-poplet-07 dfg-in-004-poplet-08 dfg-la-004-r-poplet01 eisenkern command squad

  • PuppetsWar releases some new Cyclops models.

puppetswar puppetswar2 puppetswar3


  • Last Saga shows off some of their production minis and they look really impressive.

last saga1 last saga2 last saga3 last saga4

Upcoming ITC Events


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.

  • Tons of Space Marine rumors floating around.
  • White Scars did not lose Hit and Run.
  • The Demi Company looks quite good, gives you a Tactical Doctrine for free and retains ObSec. The Gladius Detachment is awesome, and gives you all of the Ultramarine Combat Doctrines to models in the detachment with Chapter Tactics.
  • One of the Warlord Traits allows you to every turn choose a unit within 12″ and give them Rending.
  • Tigurius comes with the Rending Warlord Trait. Wow.
  • Devastators can apparently pay 5pts to get a once per game reroll to hit with their Cherub baby model.
  • Tank Formations supposedly require all 3 tanks to be alive but are pretty crazy. The Predators get Tank and Monster Hunter, Stalkers get Ignore Cover making them pretty deadly, and Vindicators get a combined shot, Apocalyptic Blase, Ignores Cover shot….wow!
  • Lysander, Kantor, Vulkan, all get the FnP trait, poor Shrike gets Fear, Khan has the reroll ld bubble. Telion comes with the rending trait which is awesome, and means you can take a true Scout Army, now.
  • AA formaiton of 2 Stalkers and 1 Hunter, can get improved BS. Meh.
  • 1st Company formation gives preferred enemy to a single enemy unit, -2ld to enemy units in range of 3+ units from the formation.
  • Strike Force Ultra lets you reserve the entire formaiton, they all start rolling reserve rolls on turn 1. Get +1 shot or attack the turn the enter the game or exit a transport vehicle.
  • Chaplain formation has a 6+ Zealot bubble.
  • Scout Formation…not so hot. Stealth they move, precision shots turn 1.
  • Assault Cents are now strength 10! Woah.
  • Dreads have 4 attacks.
  • Vanguard Vets actually look playable now, wow! 5pt Power Weapons, reroll the charge roll, no disordered charges…dang, they might actually see some table-time.

Rant Session

Tactics Corner

Rules Lawyer

  •  Do we treat the Battle Company as 1 or 2 Formations in the ITC?

Completed Commissions


List Review

1850 Khorne Daemonkin

Blood host detachment with

• Slaughter host

Two cultists units

Most CC/pistol

Bloodletters MSU

Chaos marines

Swap bolters for CCW, melta gun, and power maul

Chaos lord with 4++ and Axe of Ruin

Possesed MSU

• Gorepack

Flesh hounds MSU

Bikers MSU with 2 Melta and power fist

Bikers MSU with 2 Melta and power fist

•Aux war engines

Helbrute with reaper autocannon

Mauler fiend with magma cutters

Mauler fiend with magma cutters

•Oathsworn detachment

Crusader with stormspear rockets, battle cannon, and melta nipple

The knight is to try and hold out on his own adding fire power and threats.

Hounds, bikers, and mauler fiends are to push and hit any soft units if they can or tie up threats.

Bloodletters and cultists are for foot print, objective grabs, and blood points


About Reecius

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

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

  1. Venkarel June 12, 2015 10:07 am

    Per the current rules as I understand it, the Demi Battle Company should be legal as it is one formation. The Battle company should not be legal as it requires you to take two Demi Battle Company formations, which is against ITC rules. The Gladius is just like the decurian, so legal as one detachment, just cannot take more than one of each formation.

    • Greggles June 12, 2015 11:20 am

      I agree with that wording. I don’t think the space marines should be exempt, just due to a slight wording difference. It still specifically “if you take two cores”.

      I see the arguments from both sides, but don’t see how you can apply this limitation to necrons, and then look the other way for marines.

      • abusepuppy June 12, 2015 12:58 pm

        But… but… but SPEHSSS MEHREEENSSS! They deserve a Unique and Special Snowflake exception for all rules! I mean, they can ride multiple units inside a single transport, they get to change the order of how modifiers are applied for no apparent reason, and half the rules in the game have a “but this doesn’t apply to Marines” exception on them. How DARE you imply that this rule, of all rules, should be allowed to affect them? After all, they really, REALLY want to get a bunch of free models in addition to their free rules- who are you to deny them that?

        • Mike June 12, 2015 1:37 pm

          Why should eldar get special treatment then? GW already feeds them on a silver platter. They had stuff in their book that the ITC had previously banned because of heavy player popular opinion, and the ITC bent over backwards to make sure their units were unbanned.

          It’s clearly GW intent to have the battle company be a playable option. If we aren’t going to shift a rule to make something playable that was meant to be playable, then we shouldn’t do ANY special treatment, and we should undo the eldar changes and disallow them from their ranged str D units. Only fair.

          • abusepuppy June 12, 2015 1:53 pm

            It’s clear GW wants unnerfed Str D and infinite detachments and unbound, too, but we’re not allowing any of those either.

          • Mike June 12, 2015 2:01 pm

            The difference there is that you can still take anything in the game even with limited detachments and no unbound. There is no single playable option that requires multiple detachments or an unbound list. (Barring some banned superheavies and 30k etc.)

            The battle company, however is currently not possible to play, even though it is clearly intended to be a playable option in a core codex. No Amount of detachments or even unbound helps with this, given that it’s just an ITC ruling oversight that’s causing it.

          • abusepuppy June 13, 2015 6:33 am

            So how is the Battle Company different from, say, taking two Destroyer Cults? What makes it so special and unique that we should change the rules to allow it?

          • Mike June 13, 2015 3:13 pm

            It has a special rule that says they “form” a new thing.

          • dr.insanotron June 13, 2015 7:27 pm

            All the formations in the Necron and Eldar books and form a “New Thing”. The Decurion and War Host. The point is they never stop being 2 Demi Companies and thus by the ITC rules are not allowed

  2. iNcontroL June 12, 2015 10:11 am

    good find Venkarel

  3. wizardfrog June 12, 2015 10:12 am

    Unfortunate that under the current it marines can’t take the 2 demi company detachment , kind of weakens the book

    • bogalubov June 12, 2015 10:38 am

      Ah yes the inability to take 500+ free points of objective secured transports does make the book awful.

      • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 11:59 am

        It’s only 300pts

        • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 12:00 pm

          sorry I guess it would depend on the transport. But still not 500

          • bogalubov June 12, 2015 12:42 pm

            6 tactical squads. 2 assault squads. 2 devastators squads.

            Each can take a razorback which is over 50 points. So with that transport, yes at least 500.

            You can also add 2 dreads that would get their pods for free.

            The difference between this free stuff and the admech, blood angels is that those did not provide 10+ objective secured transports that can score objectives the whole game.

            But I’m not beyond suggesting that any formation that gives free stuff should be banned. Why bother having points at all then?

      • Mike June 12, 2015 12:30 pm

        Admech can already take 500 free points in the ITC. Even blood angels can take 400 in free wargear in one of their formations. Why should this one be illegal while those are legal?

        • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 12:38 pm

          Because ITC doesnt allow you to take more then 1 of the same kid of formation. and you have to take 2 Demi Companies to get the free transports. If you allow they to take 2 of the same you have to allow everyone to take 2 of the same

          • Mike June 12, 2015 1:07 pm

            Or you could just rule that a battle company is a single separate formation, that just happens to be made up of “double the Demi-company’s requirements.”

            It’s an easy fix. If admech war convo, among other things, didn’t exist, I’d be all for keeping it illegal, but there’s some scary junk out there now. Having a bunch of extra heavy bolter razorbacks is hardly the most OP thing in the game, especially when you’re forced to take a very lackluster force of rank and file marines (which are bad) to get them.

            It’s entirely obvious that the RAI here is to let people play a full battle company, and the ITC only has it banned currently because of an awkward interaction with a rule that was made before they knew the company existed.

            I can’t see any fair rational TO disallowing a full battle company but allowing a war convocation.

          • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 1:13 pm

            Ahh really. I cant see why any rational TO disallowing 2 D Cults in a Decurion detachments

            and it could be completely unfair if they ignored the rules only for Marines

          • Mike June 12, 2015 1:40 pm

            But it’s clearly intended to be able to take 2 for a special purpose, unlike the others.

            Like I said earlier, if the rules can’t be shifted to allow something that was clearly intended to be playable, we need to remove ranged D and have the eldar wraith units banned again. No special treatment right?

        • abusepuppy June 12, 2015 1:00 pm

          As already pointed out, ITC forbids it.

          Also, the War Convocation gets free special weapons and a handful of other things as a bonus for taking lots of mediocre units in awkward combinations. The Battle Company gives you free _models_ (ObSec ones, no less) as compensation for taking mostly what you were going to take anyways.

          • Mike June 12, 2015 3:00 pm

            The war convocation gives you free points, which directly transplanted to you being able to take other models you couldn’t have afforded bad you actually paid for their wargear. What you do with the free points doesn’t matter, it’s still free points.

            And I certainly wouldn’t take a battle company as “things I would take anyway.” 30 tactical marines? I try to have as few of those as possible in my BA. 10 ASM? When’s the last time you saw a competitive SM list run ASM at all? A chaplain? There are a bunch of subpar choice in there.

          • abusepuppy June 13, 2015 6:35 am

            >What you do with the free points doesn’t matter,

            I would beg to differ. 300pts that buys you nothing but Penitent Engines or Servo-Skulls is very different from 300pts that buys you Broadsides or Scatter Bikes. What you do with the points is EXTREMELY important.

          • Mike June 13, 2015 1:40 pm

            It doesn’t change the fact that they’re free. Yes using them smartly is better than using them foolishly, but your point above was that the admech doesn’t give you free models. I say if you get free points somewhere in your list and then have points to fit more models in the list because of that, then you ARE, effectively, getting free models. Using the points for bad models doesn’t change that.

      • bigpig June 12, 2015 12:56 pm

        It is average or a bit above without the free stuff. Its no eldar codex ;), basically the same as it always was. I also feel that all the free stuff should not be allowed for ITC. Why take points at all right?

        The admech formation is just gross

        • abusepuppy June 12, 2015 1:01 pm

          It didn’t get any weaker than it was before, certainly, as all of the shenanigans you could use are still there. And several important units (like the Thunderfire) got noticeably better.

  4. vercingatorix June 12, 2015 10:53 am

    All I want for orks is no penalty for disordered charge!

    I like the idea of the more durable and all-purpose space marines. the free transports goes along with that without greatly increasing the offensive power.

    Clearing a pod or two off of every objective isn’t going to be very fun however.

    • fluger June 12, 2015 2:50 pm

      That’s an awesome idea for Orks. I approve.

  5. bigpig June 12, 2015 11:12 am

    Per the way you have been doing formations, A gladius strike force containing a battle company (2 demi companies) AND other support formations is 1 detachment. A battle company by itself is 2 detachments. Consider it the cost for not having to take the subpar support formation.

    Honestly, taking a battle company formed from two demis has some huge advantages. Trying to say that they Voltron up and now count as only one formation gives them too much and does away with the limitations marine players will have to work around to field 400-500 free points of transports in a tournament

  6. dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 12:09 pm

    The idea that you can take two demi comanis because of order of operation would also mean decurion can take doubles as well because I build my decurion by the codex then it al becomes one detachment. And the itc only limits taking g two of the same detachment

    • Bigpig June 12, 2015 12:19 pm

      Thus is key. You cannot duplicate formations per itc unless they are allowed as a component of a decurion style formation. There is no battle company formation option outside of that allowed within the Gladius strike force

      • dr.insanotron June 13, 2015 7:34 pm

        Sorry but No. A Decurion is currently not allowed to take duplicate formations in the ITC

  7. iNcontroL June 12, 2015 12:13 pm

    Yep. Decurion already established the precedent as far as I am concerned. Otherwise you would be telling them they can now take two destroyer cults under the decurion or something.

    • Bigpig June 12, 2015 12:46 pm

      They can can’t they? Ot us part if the decurion which specifically says you can. Even the daemon kin list above has duplicates in its host formation. It includes 3 aux war units.surely you aren’t saying a blood host can have only one war engine

      • Bigpig June 12, 2015 12:49 pm

        Disregard. The war engines are dataslates. I misread

      • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 12:52 pm

        No by ITC you cant take the same formation more then once. and war engines aren’t formations so you can have more then one of them

        • Bigpig June 12, 2015 1:31 pm

          Which is why I immediately corrected myself right above your post 😉

  8. Mike June 12, 2015 12:25 pm

    I missed the stream due to work.

    So is the full battle company in the gladius legal or no? I have an ITC event literally a week away, and I need to know if I need to start doing some emergency wyiswyg work and painting ASAP. If it’s still being debated, do we know when we’ll have an answer?

    • Bigpig June 12, 2015 12:43 pm

      Jury is still out. I think yes, but who knows

      • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 12:46 pm

        By ITC right now the answer is NO. you cant take more then 1 of the same kind of formation

        • Bigpig June 12, 2015 12:49 pm

          But the discussion is if it forms one battle company, hence the debate.

          • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 1:01 pm

            There is no formation called “battle Company”. and to from a battle company you have to take 2 Demi Companies witch you cant do by ITC rules.

          • abusepuppy June 12, 2015 1:03 pm

            Yeah. There’s no unclarity here at all- the fact that the special rule says “when you take two Demi-Companies it’s called a Battle Company and has these fancy rules” doesn’t change the fact that you are still taking two Demi-Companies, which is not legal under ITC.

          • Bigpig June 12, 2015 1:35 pm

            You miss the point that people feel the Rai is that you should be able to take a battle company. Hence the debate. I agree with you that current language established before this existed does forbid it. The debate is should it

          • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 1:46 pm

            Ugh by RAIDER I am allowed to take as many of the same formations as I can fit in a list

          • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 1:47 pm

            RAI not raider

          • abusepuppy June 12, 2015 1:47 pm

            Ah, RAI- “I know it’s illegal, but I still want to do it.”

          • Bigpig June 12, 2015 2:03 pm

            Especially if you are allowing the war convocation which arguably is much better than 3 or 400 points worth of free transports. In both formations you are restricted in the units you can take. I disagree that you would take all of the units in a Gladius that you would otherwise. Would you normally take a chaplain? Would you normally take two units of assault marines or Scout bikers? The unit restrictions exist for both formations. Again I am of the opinion that any formations which allow more than 100 points of free units should not be allowed. Arguably any formations are too much especially the ones in the new Eldar codex but the formations do add some variety and not all of them are even close to broken

          • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 2:07 pm

            It’s important to note Bigpig. We aren’t saying I should be banned, we are saying the rule should apply to everyone. So if the battle company is in, the limit on multiples of the same formation should be removed

          • bigpig June 12, 2015 4:10 pm

            Well, also important to note that by following a rule written before the ability to make something out of two formations combined together, you are effectively saying ban it.

            This is a living thing and every change to the armies affects the ITC interpretation of things. If there weren’t changes or new interpretations then we would be playing with unnerfed ranged D, stock invisibility, and Come the Apoc allies.

            An no, Abuse, RAI is NOT what you say, but thanks for the ad hominem. You don’t know my motivations so please don’t presume to and do so in such a condescending manner. Not annoyed and not trying to offend. Just pointing out that your comment is incorrect.

            At times people do use RAI arguments to try and get their way for personal benefit. People try to use RAW the same way when RAW is open to debate. If I ever choose to look at an RAI issue, I do it without concern for whether it benefits me or not. As a primary nid and eldar player at itc events, this marine one clearly does not.

          • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 4:14 pm

            You mean kind of like a decurion turning a bunch of formations into one thing. This is no different

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 12, 2015 5:35 pm

            But it is different. Two Necron formations do not combine into something with a new name and additional rules. This is the first time we’ve seen this that is actually applicable outside of the formations of formations we have ha din previous books which cost too many points to actually implement.

          • abusepuppy June 13, 2015 6:36 am

            Reece, the two Demi-Companies don’t “turn into one thing.” It’s still two Demi-Companies, they just have a special rule attached to them.

          • Mike June 13, 2015 1:59 pm

            It specifically says they do “form” one thing. That thing just doesn’t have a full page data sheet since they can explain what it is in a few sentences. I think they assumed that we would be able to figure it out.

            Unfortunately, that does open up a can of technicality worms, like “it’s technically taking 2 of the same formation,” “once it becomes a battle company it loses the Demi-company rules,” and “once it becomes a battle company it loses all rules and models except for free transports for the 0 models in the formation.”

            ITC could get around the duplicate thing by simply calling them a captain Demi company and a chaplain Demi company, since you ARE forced to make different selections of those in the two Demi companies.

          • abusepuppy June 13, 2015 10:26 pm

            All formations have a datasheet.

            The Battle Company does not have a datasheet.

            The Battle Company is not a formation.

  9. Mike June 12, 2015 1:21 pm

    Honestly I think we’d be better off banning all formations.
    -they make list checking a nightmare for TO’s as well as players. At a local ITC event, we had a guy sneak in some crons beside a decurion that weren’t in a detachment. No one caught that he was unbound until day 2, and all his wins had to be reversed, and the people that had lost to him were playing lower ranked people than they should have been.

    -By giving “free” models, abilities and gear, they break the point system, which is supposed to be the primary balance system in the game.

    -They ignore any force organization so you can opt out of “tax troops” etc, getting rid of one of the secondary balance systems in the game.

    -at least with special detachments, you give up obsec to get some other ability in return.

    Some of them are quite tame. Some of them want you to take some bad units. But some of them at just straight up no-disadvantage options, like riptide + 6 broadsides. You could debate endlessly about which are “OP,” which are just “good,” and which are “bad.”

    I say we’d have a better tourney game system if we just nixed the formations. Yes some books are still better than others. It’s still not a perfect solution, but I believe it’s a strong jump in the right direction.

    • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 1:25 pm

      And I would have a problem with doing that because it would be universal. The Idea of some people trying to say tat the rule set down by the ITC just shouldnt apply to Marines and only Marines is just wrong and BS

      • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 1:26 pm

        wouldnt have a problem i mean

        • Mike June 12, 2015 1:46 pm

          It wouldn’t be a “marines are special” thing though.
          Changing ITC rules to allow things into the game that were intended to be played DOES have a precedent. One only several weeks old in fact.

          The ITC changed their core rules to allow ranged str D so that eldar (who certainly didn’t need help anyway,) to play all the options in their book.

          Why can’t the marines play all the options in their book?

          So if the ITC didn’t change to allow the battle company, they would be going against precedent, saying “we will help eldar if our rules inconvenience them, but not marines.”

          • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 1:51 pm

            They aren’t talking about making a change to the itc format. They are saying it just doesn’t apply to marines.

            So yes it would be a special marine thing

          • abusepuppy June 12, 2015 1:52 pm

            The difference is that doing so for Eldar was to allow them to field units from their codex which would otherwise be outright banned; there are no units (or formations) in the SM codex that you cannot field because of ITC rules.

          • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 1:59 pm

            And that change applies to all armies, not just Eldar

          • Bigpig June 12, 2015 2:04 pm

            They also changed the rules to allow multiple knights in the form of more than one Lord of war

          • Mike June 12, 2015 3:29 pm

            What pig said. You could run any of the knights before, but not their formations or more than 1 because of ITC rules, and they also fixed that, so there are TWO precedents saying that the rules should be altered to allow a battle company.

  10. dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 1:33 pm

    It is also important to note that a Battle Company is not a Formation, Dataslate, or FOC.

    All it is, is the name for meeting certain requirements to unlock extra special rules, and nothing more. And in no way allows you to bypass the rule of the ITC army building

  11. pascalnz June 12, 2015 1:41 pm

    wow, can’t take a company, glad we are all for fluff lists right??

    I guess, by adding two demi companies together they become something else? 2 destroyer cults are just 2 destroyer cults, 2 demi companies become a battle company.

    It does my head in that we might not see a full company on the board. a more archetypal formation doesn’t exist in 40k.

    • abusepuppy June 12, 2015 1:50 pm

      Yes, it truly is sad that you have no legal way under the rules to take six Tactical Sqauds, two Assault Squads, two Devastator Squads, and a pair of HQs.

      >2 destroyer cults are just 2 destroyer cults

      Okay so if I call my two Destroyer Cults an “Annihilation Cult” does that make it legal? Because if so I’ll totally do that.

      • Ghost Valley June 12, 2015 2:25 pm

        As long as your “annihilation cult” is made of space marines, then yes.

      • wizardfrog June 12, 2015 3:36 pm

        Except an annilation cult isn’t an actual formation with established rules. So that argument is nonsensical.

        • abusepuppy June 13, 2015 6:38 am

          Well neither is a Battle Company. The fact that taking two Demi-Companies has a special rule attached to it doesn’t actually make it a separate formation.

    • winterman June 12, 2015 2:05 pm

      Even if a Battle Company is a formation (which it probably is not since there’s no actual datasheet for it), it is still clearly made from two identical Formations — which would still make it illegal in ITC without some sort of allowance.

      For instance Skitarii have a formation which is made up of 3 battle maniples. That is illegal in ITC and is not allowed at events. This Battle Company thing is not much different, only reason it is even discussed is because everyone wants to play this sort of list.

      • Reecius
        Reecius June 12, 2015 3:07 pm

        That’s actually not true, Winterman. We have always sort-of allowed the Formations of Formations such as those found in the Space Wolf and Ork supplements, they simply were a non issue because they do not fit in 1850pts.

        • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 3:17 pm

          You’ve never allowed one that had the same formation twice in it. So there is no real point to what you said

  12. Reecius
    Reecius June 12, 2015 3:04 pm

    Thanks for all the feedback as usual, guys. As we are reading it, the Demi-Company/Battle Company in the ITC issue boils down to this: is the Battle Company a unique detachment, yes or no? I personally read it as yes, it is a unique detachment. However, this is of course debatable (as all things are). For me, the key points are that it has a unique name and rules for combining the two detachments into 1 detachment. No other detachments do this, so I read it as a unique case.

    Second point: if this is a unique formation, does taking it violate the ITC restrictions on no duplicate detachments? That comes down to order of operations if you accept the first premise that the battle Company is a unique detachment specific to the Gladius Strike Force. Therefore, do we violate the ITC rules be taking the two to combine into one, or do we accept that the Battle Company is a detachment that is created from two and that when you write your list, you end up with a single formation.

    • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 3:16 pm

      The battle company is clearly not a detachment reece. All detachments can be taken on there own. Can you take a battle company detachment? The answer is no because it isn’t one

      • Reecius
        Reecius June 12, 2015 3:25 pm

        Ben, haha, you always argue your points from an absolute stance. It’s funny. There are always shades of gray, buddy (sometimes 50 of them!).

        This is a unique case, we have not seen anything like this before. We’ve seen similar “formations of formations” which are technically legal in the ITC but don’t matter because they are too many points to fit at 1850. However, this is an entirely new case wherein we have a Detachment that combines two formations into one formation with a new name and new special rules.

        You can read that as being two or one, I totally see the rationale from both perspectives. I personally read it as being one new formation that can only be taken in the Gladius Strike Force detachment. It is unlike anything else we’ve seen. So, it may warrant special treatment.

        And to be fair, when Necrons came out, we ruled the Decurioun detachment as counting as a single detachment regardless of the number of sub-formations within it. We changed the guidelines to accommodate the cool new Necron stuff. When Eldar came out, we altered the Guidelines to let them use D weapons to accommodate the cool new Eldar stuff. When the War Convocation came out, with a formation of 3 factions, we allowed it to let the AdMech players use their cool new stuff. When Kinghts got revamped, we altered the rules to allow them to remain playable. If we allow the Battle company (haven’t decided just yet) it would be in keeping with the treatment every other faction has received.

        • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 3:28 pm

          The problem with what your saying is that a battle company is not a formation, a detachment, or a foc. The Demi company is a formation, and the Glavie is a group of formations. To say a battle company is any of those things is not supported by the rules

          • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 3:29 pm

            And I plan on playing marines. So I’m really arguing against my self

        • wizardfrog June 12, 2015 3:34 pm

          I don’t get the crying about being op, sure free transports are nice, but it’s got a lot of tax units (chaplain, captain if you don’t give him lots of wargear, assault marines etc.) I mean if it was the other way around (buy transports and get a chaplain, captain, and assault space marines for free) people wouldn’t be so salty. The itc has changed previous rulings for other army’s as Reece pointed out before, why should marines be the line in the sand?

          • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 3:37 pm

            It has less to do with what the space marines get and more to do with applying the rules equally to all codex. If you allow marines to take more then one of a specific formagtion you have to allow everyone to do the same

          • Kartr Kana June 14, 2015 6:53 am

            Yeah which should already be allowed because combi-detachments count as a single detachment. So the rule that you can’t duplicate detachments should apply to the highest level only or it doesn’t make sense. So you can’t take 2 10th Company Task Forces as unique detachments because that would be duplicating detachments. However if I take a Gladius Strike Force it counts as a single detachment that can take two 10th Company Task Forces as part of its FOC. Since the GSF is the Detachment I can’t duplicate it, but I can take multiples of any formation inside since they don’t count towards the detachment limit.

        • Mike June 12, 2015 3:46 pm

          I agree that allowing the battle company as a “special case” falls in line with the other recent rules changes the ITC has had to do in response to GW’s crazy rules writing (I still swear they’re having someone follow the tournament scene just so they can write rules that mess up the tournament rules.)

          Not allowing it would actually be quite surprising to me, given the itc’s consistency so far.

        • Kartr Kana June 14, 2015 6:48 am

          Except Reece the “Battle Company” is never defined as a unique Formation/Detachment. Rather it is a rule in the Gladius Strike Force that allows two very specific Demi-Companies to unlock free transports. The formations are not being re-named and turned into a new formation, they are still two demi-companies in a GSF, taking advantage of a special rule.

          There are 12 Formations that can be taken in a Gladius Strike Force:
          Battle Demi-Company
          Strike Force Command
          Reclusiam Command Squad
          Librarius Conclave
          Armoured Task Force
          1st Company Task Force
          10th Company Task Force
          Storm Wing
          Suppression Force
          Centurion Siegebreaker Cohort
          Land Raider Spearhead

          There is no “Battle Company” Formation/Detachment allowed in a Gladius Strike Force, there is no “Battle Company” defined as a formation or a detachment in the book. All you have is a special rule under Gladius Strike Force that allows two specific demi-companies to take free transports, because those two specific demi-companies represent an entire Battle Company. They don’t become a “Battle Company Detachment” they represent the Fluff battle of order for a Space Marine Battle Company. The defined units are still two Demi-Battle Company Formations one with a Captain and one with a Chaplain, in a Gladius Strike Force with an Auxiliary Detachment.

          The only way you could have a Battle Company be its own Detachment was if you had a Dataslate for a Battle Company Detachment with the requirement being two Demi-Companies with the restriction of 1 Captain and 1 Chaplain. Otherwise its just a Command Benefit of the Gladius Strike Force that allows two specific Core choices to take free transports.

          No Dataslate, No Formation. Show me the dataslate.

          The only problem here is the ninja nerf to combi-detachments where you say formations in combi-detachment count as formations that can’t be duplicated. Which makes no sense because you can’t duplicate detachments (no double CAD, AD, GSF, Decurion, Warhost, etc.), but ruled that a combi-detachment counts as a single detachment. So a GSF is one detachment regardless of the formations it contains so I can’t take 2 GSFs, but I should be able to take 2 Demi-Companies because the detachment is the GSF not the Demi-companies. Now if I wanted to take two Armoured Task Forces outside of the Gladius Strike Force I would be duplicating formations.

    • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 3:25 pm

      I will also point out that the Glabie, Decurion, and Warhol all have rules to turn multiple formations into 1 detachment. This doesn’t stop the rules in the itc fromantic taking effect

      • bigpig June 12, 2015 4:21 pm

        I love autocorrect 🙂

    • bigpig June 12, 2015 4:23 pm

      While agree with your interpretation, let me add that at some point the ITC should look at limitations on how many “free points” you can get. 10%? 15% 20%? Arguably the effectiveness of those points does vary based upon the tax to get them, but perhaps an across the board percentage limit is in order?

      • Reecius
        Reecius June 12, 2015 5:34 pm

        The only issue there is how to deal with summoned units. Who’s going to keep track of that during a game?

    • Kartr Kana June 14, 2015 6:24 am

      No the Battle Company is not its own Formation/Detachment, it is a special rule (Company Support) for the Gladius Strike Force.

      The defined Formations and Detachments are the Gladius Strike Force, Demi-Battle Company and a number of Command and Auxiliary Formations. Battle Company is not defined anywhere as its own Formation or Detachment. Instead what you have is a Gladius Strike Force with the rule Company Support, which requires two specific formations. If those specific formations are included then they get free transports as per the rule, not per a separate formation.

  13. Nightman June 12, 2015 3:05 pm

    Not a fan of cherry picking between RAI and RAW, RAW seems pretty clear.

  14. dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 3:46 pm

    Reece let me ask you this one simple question. If 2 demi companies combine into a battle company and are no longer 2 demi companies. Then that would mean the lose all the special rules a demi company receives right. I mean you can’t have it both ways and be a demi and not be a demi at the same time

    • Mike June 12, 2015 3:55 pm

      It’s obvious that the design intent is to allow a full battle company in a gladius, and the only issue here is a previous ITC rule mucking that up by accident (since they obviously didn’t know this was going to exist.)

      Yes by RAW in the ITC the full battle company is illegal. Is it intentional? Obviously not, since it didn’t exist when they made the rule. So that makes it kind of a reverse rules oversight.

      If there is a rules oversight, should it not be fixed? Or are you saying that the ITC should draw an arbitrary line here and be totally inflexible to all future rules?

      If they don’t fix this, I would argue that they need to go back and disallow more than 3 total formations from a decurion, disallow multiple knights, disallow ranged str D, etc etc. like you said, that would be treating all books the same.

      • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 4:00 pm

        Come on Mike it’s obvious that all the new decurion style detachments are meant to be able to take multiples of the same formation.

        But the itc has a format that this is not allowed. All im saying is if you want to change that for marines then you have to change it for everyone. And not try and make up a silly argument why mar in nest should be the exception, especially when there are no rules to support it

        • Mike June 12, 2015 4:16 pm

          Well in my defense, I was as surprised as you were when I heard that you could not take multiples of the same subformation in a decurion-type. I wouldn’t mind terribly if they rectified that here and now while simultaneously fixing the battle company.

          • Will Grant June 12, 2015 5:12 pm

            I was surprised by this too.

            Both of our local Necron players bought two harvest with the intent of using them.

            It was casually drooped in a podcast that this was illegal akin to a “stealth nerf” in video games.

          • Reecius
            Reecius June 12, 2015 5:31 pm

            Stealth Nerf? Not really. That’s been on the ITC Tournament Format guidelines for ages. We’ve had that ruling since the beginning of 7th ed, I believe.

          • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 6:37 pm

            No you haven Reece. The issue only came up with the release of Necrons. And we voted the it counted as a single detachment. and the “stealth nerf came from when you slid in that the vote for no duplicate detachments also applied to the formations with in the Decurion. witch is not what we voted for . So yeah stealth nerf is about right

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 12, 2015 5:37 pm

      We debated this point in the shop, too. However, it defies reason to assume that something made of something else ceases to contain the elements of what it is made from. If you take that argument to its conclusion, you have no guidelines to use the Battle Company at all and it becomes nothing. Clearly, that is silly.

      • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 6:33 pm

        it doesn’t if the Demis are still 2 formations. only in your conclusion does it break down. and it never says the stop being 2 Demi formations or you would lose obsec, but no one really thinks that. witch leaves it as still being 2 demi formations witch is not allowed at the ITC

      • Will Grant June 13, 2015 3:21 am

        It’s a syntax issue, just like the current space marine issue. We never read them as “formations”, so we never assumed it was illegal.

        We were reading the Auxillaries as part of a greater detachment. We read the book that in a Decurion that Harvests or Destroyer Cults were no longer “formations” and instead were “choices” underneath a Decurion. Just like a Heavy support is a choice underneath a CAD.

        Each time a new interaction of how formation X counts under formation Y comes out, you guys will have to scramble to assume the intent by GW.

        Locally we have bee calling them “Russian Nesting Dolls” and regardless of how you slice it, aren’t:

        1) Detachment made up of detcahments (warhorst)
        2) Detcahment made up of formations (Necron Decurion)
        3) Formation made up of 2 of same formation (Space Marine)

        pretty much the same thing depending on how you rule?

    • Kartr Kana June 14, 2015 6:18 am

      They are still two Demi-Companies.

      The Gladius Strike Force has 1-2 Core Formations, the only Core Formations are Demi-battle Companies. If you have two specific Demi-battle companies (one with a Captain and one with a Chaplain) you unlock a special rule for the Gladius Strike Force (Company Support) which allows you to get free transports for the units in your Demi-Battle Companies.

      There is no Formation/Detachment that is a Battle Company, there is only two specific formations, the Gladius Strike Force and a special rule. Free transports is a special rule for the Gladius Strike Force not a “Battle Company.”

  15. DCannon4Life June 12, 2015 4:33 pm

    Ah…the Imperium of Man; Has Cake, Wants to Eat It Too.

    You have to take two identical formations in order to ‘create’ the super-formation. You can’t take identical formations, so you can’t create the super-formation.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 12, 2015 5:33 pm

      Overly simplistic arguments fail to capture the complexity of the situation. This isn’t an imperial bias, this is dealing with something new. We made changes to give Eldar players their goodies too, please remember that.

  16. DCannon4Life June 12, 2015 4:38 pm

    Also, just for the sake of correctness, here is the link to the Adeptus Windy City tournament this coming Sunday:

    Allows repeated Formations, Superheavies of all sorts, Book-Strength D, 2++ Re-rollables and Invisibility. Not for the faint of heart, I guess. 16 pre-paid with a waiting list–some notable names showing up. Personally, I look forward to getting my ‘dice’ handed to me all day.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 12, 2015 5:32 pm

      I hope you all enjoy yourselves at the event.

  17. Will Grant June 12, 2015 4:52 pm

    I feel that this is similar to the bloodthirster ruling:

    “If we make a special exception here, we run into a slippery slope with all things that deep strike”

    In this case:

    1) RAW, all decurions can duplicate auxiliaries

    2) RAW, we have a special double core for Space Marines made up of two formations

    3) ITC disallows all instances of duplicate formations

    It’s seeming first the D in Eldar, the Lords of War in IK, and now the duplicate core formation that Games Workship may very well have it out to break the ITC rules system.

    If you make a special exception for Space Marines you will have to make special exceptions with every iteration. Each book that comes out, the council will have to meet. It’s obvious Games Workshop wants us to be able to duplicate auxiliaries.

    Either stick to your guns, or allow duplicate auxillaries across ALL Decurion style detachments. Honestly, with Ad Mech Warhost and Marines getting 300-500 points extra per match would Multi harvest necrons or multi council eldar really be that bad? I think Khorne honestly would benefit the most from multiple gorepacks as all their other auxiliaries are just awful.

  18. rollawaythestone June 12, 2015 5:31 pm

    Personally I prefer more restrictions as opposed to less, but why not allow duplicate detachments/formations?

    • droozy June 15, 2015 3:12 pm

      Basically to prevent multiple Canoptek Harvest formations in the Decurian detachment. I think that’s pretty much it.

  19. Venkarel June 12, 2015 7:16 pm

    Let see if we can break down the following exact rule. Here is the exact wording of the rule (stuff in parenthesis is mine), “If a Gladius Strike Force (a detachment that resembles a decurian) includes two Battle Demi-companies (these are formations), one including a Captain and the other including a Chaplain, then together they form a Battle Company (this is just a new name for a Gladius with two Battle Demi-companies that gives an additional rule…the upgrade stuff). The Gladius detachemnt has to take the following formations 1-2 Core (this is the Battle Demi-company), 1+ Auxilary (these are the other formations such as the Suppression force or the Librarius Conclave), 0-3 Command.

    What we are really arguing about is a Gladius detachment, which clearly above will have to have two of the same (the 1-2 Core restriction above) formations (the Battle Demi-Company) included to become a Battle Company (just a name for a Gladius with two Battle Demi-companies). This is clearly not allowed per ITC.

    Now if Reece wants to open up the polls and voting to change this then it is cool, but otherwise this is a rule that was voted into the ITC not a FAQ ruling made by the rules council.

    • dr.insanotron June 12, 2015 7:36 pm

      I 100% agree. The problem is they are trying to say the Gladius is not subject to those rules in the ITC

    • Will Grant June 13, 2015 3:27 am

      The issue here becomes some form of “imperium bias”.

      If we open it up to vote, Everyone owns marines, and the vote will likely go in favor.

      Conversely, not as many folks own tyranids and so something like Come the Apoc will be voted against. I’m really curious to see major tournament Nid attendance going forward outside of FLG’s InControl. Numbers will likely dwindle until when/if Genstealer cult hits.

  20. Venkarel June 12, 2015 8:04 pm

    So after listening to their argument, I think Reece and Frankie are looking at the detachment incorrectly. The Battle company is Gladius Detachment period. A minimum Gladius Detachment with Battle Company rule is: Gladuis Detachment = (with two Battle Demi-companies) Demi-company A (with a captian) + Demi-company B (with a chaplain)+an auxiliary. This Detachment would get the Combat Doctrines. It would then check to see if it included two Battle Demi-compaines, and it does, so thus free transport rule kicks in. There is no combination of the two Demi-compaines, there is a Gladius Detachment with two Battle Demi-compaines that together get the rule for a Battle Company.

  21. wizardfrog June 12, 2015 9:02 pm

    I will just say, I understand the argument against allowing it, I personally think that as more books are released exceptions will have to be made, that said, I still think that if ITC is going to allow the marine formation, they should consider reallowing duplicate formations in a decision style detachment, the game has changed and more of that style of army building has been released. So exception or not, allowing all duplicates would ease people’s worries over bias.

    • wizardfrog June 12, 2015 9:02 pm

      Decision not decision, sorry phone

      • wizardfrog June 12, 2015 9:03 pm

        Lol decurion

  22. Will Grant June 13, 2015 3:34 am

    One other option may be to open up the idea of allowing ONE duplication of ONE formation within a Decurion, detachment, et al.

    You might see a couple double Fire Cadres (as two sources), but it would allow for Space Marines to take their nice fancy new detachment under ITC rules whilst giving existing decurions a shot in the arm but not completely opening up the floodgates.

  23. MidnightSun June 13, 2015 4:51 am

    3 Predator Destructors with Tigurius hiding behind them giving them Prescience and Storm of Fire is something I want to try – probably not very good, but amusing.

    A horde of Black Templars, with their huge improvements, inside some damage-table-ignoring Land Raider Crusaders is certainly something I want to see on the gaming table!

    • Kartr Kana June 14, 2015 6:07 am

      Take the Librarius Conclave so Tigurius can harness his warp charges on a 2+ and have access to 10-16 powers at once 😀

  24. Curtis Bargender
    Cieged June 13, 2015 6:06 am

    Banned Iyanden and not Sentinels/Clan is infuriating.

    • Reecius
      Reecius June 14, 2015 12:34 pm

      That is the ruling according to GW.

      • dr.insanotron June 14, 2015 4:54 pm

        Would you mind letting us know where you got this info from. Because the marines codexs have two different names just like the new and old eldar ones

        • Kartr June 14, 2015 5:49 pm

          The Marines ones say it on the epub page and Iaynden is no longer available.

          • dr.insanotron June 14, 2015 5:57 pm

            Cool thanks

  25. SilverSaint June 13, 2015 1:19 pm

    OK Guys, lets just forget about the Demi-Battle Company or the Full Battle Company, they don’t even matter anymore….the Skyhammer Annihilation Force has literally blown it out of the water.

    • Mike June 13, 2015 2:08 pm

      I saw that and it made me “ಠ_ಠ”

      Thankfully it’s technically not “out” until the 20th, even though we all have the models for it and have seen the complete rules. That does make wonder if someone could show up to wargames con (the 40k champs tourney starts on the morning of the 20th) with that formation, and what would they have to bring with them to prove the rules for it? Screenshot of the rules page? Would they need to have gotten the physical page from the several-hundred-dollar bundle even though it just shipped that morning?

      And the skyhammer is just another formation that leads me to believe we’d be better off with no formations in a tournament setting. I’m not gonna try to use it immediately, but if it’s still allowed, I’ll probably be rocking that at other ITC events assuming they don’t want your receipt for the bundle to be able to play it.

      • SilverSaint June 13, 2015 2:34 pm

        With all of the recent releases it seems pretty clear that formations are imbalanced for competitive play and really shouldn’t be allowed.

        I mean formations seem to be like GW saw Warmachine Tier Lists and how they sell often unused models and said, hey we can do that and make more money! They then started making them and at first they seemed cool, but they realized it wasn’t making as much money as they assumed. So they decided hey, lets just make dozens of them, but ignore the main purpose of tier lists from Warmachine (fluff) and make them super good with 1 or 2 models we don’t see a lot of to just grab loads of cash. So they created a system where most Formations have no downsides and are easily taken. It also doesn’t help that they are released one at a time with new codexs/books further adding to the general faction Formation imbalance.

        I mean the reality is a formation should cause a decision, Do I want to take this and gain X, but I lose Y? Instead most are, Do I want to gain X AND Y?

        • Kartr Kana June 14, 2015 6:04 am

          They’re not actually that bad because of how restrictive they are. “Want this? Pay through the nose because you have to have this, this and this first!”

    • abusepuppy June 13, 2015 10:31 pm

      Meh, I play Tau. Go ahead and DS those units in, my Interceptor guys love it.

      But for all the other folks out there, Relentless Devs and assaulting out of reserves could be pretty annoying. However, there are some significant limitations on it and we had the same sort of OMG GAME = BROKEN reaction to the BA formation that allowed this sort of thing, so I hesitate to call it _too_ ridiculous just yet. Gimmicky tricks are one thing, but fifteen free ObSec transports are pretty much guaranteed to be significant. (If they are allowed.)

  26. Kartr Kana June 14, 2015 5:52 am

    The Space Marine combi-detachment (Gladius Strike Force) has the following restrictions:
    1-2 Core Formations
    1+ Auxiliary Formations
    0-3 Command Formations

    The Battle Demi-company is the only core formation and you only get the full Battle Company benefits if both Demi-companies are part of the Gladius Strike Force. So in order to get the free transports you have to take:
    2 Demi-companies
    1 Auxilary Formation

    First off this means that the Battle Company is not a new formation/detachment, it is still a Gladius Strike Force combi-detachment. If I remember correctly it was ruled that a combi-detachment only counts as 1 detachment regardless of how many sub-detachments/formations it contains (I voted that it count for all your detachments, but whatevs). So ITC format as written allows a Gladius Strike Force to count as a single detachment and a “Battle Company” is just a GSF with 2 Core Detachments and 1 Auxillary Detachment.

    Second it means you need a buttload of points to get your free stuff. Here’s the cheapest way to get a “Battle Company” GSF:
    1 Captain (90 points)
    1 Chaplain (90 points)
    6 Tactical Squads (420 points)
    2 Attack Bike Squads (80 points)
    2 Devestator Squads (140 points)
    3 Scout Bike Squads (162 points)
    Total: 982 points with minimum squads and no upgrades that gives you 10 free transports, but you still have to pay for the upgrades. So you get 440 free points if you take Heavy Bolter Razorbacks with no upgrades.

    440 points of AV11 11 10 with twin-linked Heavy Bolters is the most free points you can get from this formation. In a 1000 point game you will have 15 points of upgrades across your army, with every single squad being minimum size and no upgrades.

    If you’re playing a game larger than 1000 points you are likely to see more Drop Pods and Rhinos than Razorbacks. Plus bikes are more popular than Assault Marines and fill the FA requirement for the demi-company. So assuming Tacticals take drop pods and Devestators take Razorbacks (because why not) and Bikes instead of Assault Marines you’re looking at:
    6 Drop Pods (210 points)
    2 Razorbacks (110 points)

    So 320 points of free transports, in a more common scenario. Which basically means in a 1500 point game you have 515 points of upgrades over the minimum size GSF and free transports for your Tactical and Devastator Squads.

    Oh and if the Assault Marines take Jump Packs, they can’t take any other transport options, so keep that in mind.

    • dr.insanotron June 14, 2015 9:27 am

      Well if you read the ITC format you will also see that Gladius/ Decurion etc. detachments are also NOT allowed to take duplicates of the same formation with in them

      • Kartr Kana June 14, 2015 9:39 am

        Yeah I caught that Ninja nerf after I posted. I think its utter rubbish and doesn’t make sense the way the ITC FAQ was written. They’re not separate detachments, they’re sub-components of a detachment when taken in a combi-detachment.

        The way the ITC FAQ made it sound was that you could take three (2 at the time) detachments, but couldn’t repeat any. Then the ruling was that combi-detachments only count as a single detachment. So you can’t take two Gladius Strike Forces because that would be taking two detachments that are duplicates, no different than taking two CADs. But since the Gladius Strike Force, or Eldar Warhost, or Decurion Detachment are considered a single detachment for the purposes of the detachment rules (only three and no duplication) then the sub-detachments/formations can’t count against the duplicate detachment rule because the only detachment is the GSF, EW or DD, since they count as a single detachment.

        Its a stupid double standard and ninja nerf. The better answer is to play the combi-detachments according to their rules, but FAQ it so that if you take a combi-detachment you can’t take any other separate detachments. That way you could get all your sub-formations in any number you want, but you can’t ally in a CAD or faction specific detachment. Want Coteaz? Can’t take a GSF. Want Harlequin/DE allies? Can’t take a War Host.

  27. Kartr Kana June 14, 2015 6:03 am

    Slight mistake there, Scout Bikes aren’t the cheapest because they have to take Cluster Mines so the cheapest “Battle Company” GSF is 985 points using Scouts with no upgrades instead of the Scout Bikes.

  28. Kartr Kana June 14, 2015 8:18 am

    I disagree about Raven Guard getting worse Reece. They lose Scout, but they also dropped the “can’t get stealth on bulky/very bulky units,” plus stealth was upgraded to Shrouding! Losing Scout isn’t a big deal for Raven Guard because you can’t assault if you Scout and Raven Guard are all about the Assault Marines/Vanguard Vets.

    So now your Assault Marines and Vanguard Vets gain Shrouded on turn 1, you get Night Fighting on a 3+ instead of a 4+ so a better chance to get a 4+ cover save in the open on turn 1. 12″ move and you can still use your jet packs in the Assault Phase. Pop your GSF Assault Doctrine and they re-roll all hits in shooting and assault, and re-roll Hammer of Wrath wounds. Take a Jump Pack Chaplain and now they get Hatred. So deploy at the line with a 4+ or 5+ cover in the open, 2+ or 3+ in terrain, 2+ in Ruins, jump 12″, potential for a 12″ re-rollable charge. Vanguard Deployment could be really really good for Raven Guard with the closer deployment range.

    So I don’t think they’re top tier but they’re better than before because the Jump Pack units now benefit from Shrouded and losing Scout wasn’t to harmful because they can’t Assault from a Scout move anyway.

    Ravenguard with a Demi-company and a 1st Company Task Force can create a little gun-line to back up 30 Vanguard vets with power weapons and 10 Assault Marines flying across the board for a very fun army.

    Raven Guard Gladius Strike Force
    Battle Demi-company
    Captain w/Jump Pack and Power Weapon (120 points)
    3x Tactical Squads (210 points)
    3x Razorbacks w/Heavy Bolters (free)
    1x Attack Bike (40)
    Devastator Squad w/Las cannons (150 points)
    Razorback w/Heavy Bolter (free)
    Total: 520

    Battle Demi-company
    Chaplain w/Jump Pack (105 points)
    3x Tactical Squads (210 points)
    3x Razorbacks w/Heavy Bolters (free)
    1x Attack Bike (40 points)
    Devastator Squad w/Las cannons (150 points)
    Razorback w/Heavy Bolter (free)
    Total: 505

    1st Company Task Force
    Vanguard Veteran Squad, 10x Veterans, 10x Power weapons (270 points)
    Vanguard Veteran Squad, 10x Veterans, 10x Power weapons (270 points)
    Vanguard Veteran Squad, 10x Veterans, 10x Power weapons (270 points)
    Total: 810

    Grand Total: 1835 points

    • Kartr Kana June 14, 2015 8:28 am


      Raven Guard Gladius Strike Force
      Battle Demi-company
      Shadow Captain Shrike (185 points)
      3x Tactical Squads (210 points)
      3x Razorbacks w/Heavy Bolters (free)
      1x Attack Bike (40)
      Devastator Squad w/Missile Launchers (130 points)
      Razorback w/Heavy Bolter (free)
      Total: 565

      Battle Demi-company
      Chaplain w/Jump Pack (105 points)
      3x Tactical Squads (210 points)
      3x Razorbacks w/Heavy Bolters (free)
      1x Attack Bike (40 points)
      Devastator Squad w/Missile launchers (130 points)
      Razorback w/Heavy Bolter (free)
      Total: 485

      1st Company Task Force
      Vanguard Veteran Squad, 10x Veterans, 8x Power weapons (260 points)
      Vanguard Veteran Squad, 10x Veterans, 10x Power weapons (270 points)
      Vanguard Veteran Squad, 10x Veterans, 10x Power weapons (270 points)
      Total: 800

      Grand Total: 1850 points

  29. droozy June 15, 2015 10:12 am

    Reece, I will happily admit your superior understanding of units in 40k but… Flesh hounds. I’ve been trying to run them and just don’t get what’s so good about them. I’ve never ran a max squad but I have run squads of up to 16 and they die fast and flop around ineffectively when they get to combat… What am I doing wrong? I have run them with jugger lords and they do work. The hounds get him in there but it’s not a cheap way to get him into combat and he honestly never does that much. Sometimes he makes back his points. Usually he falls short. I can sometimes lock up a good unit for a few turns with the hounds but for the points it just doesn’t seem worth it. Is it a unit that needs context to shine? Is it only effective against light infantry? Help me please, I just want to understand