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

signals from the Frontline

Show Notes

Date 7-27-2015

Intro

  • 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 Contact@FrontlineGaming.org
  • We sell tabletop games and supplies at 20% off! Hit us up for your next gaming order at Orders@FrontlineGaming.org or visit our webstore at FrontlineGaming.org.

News

  • AoS Judicators are up for pre-order! Shoot your orders in to Orders@FrontlineGaming.org for dat sweet 25% off pre-order goodness!

AgeofSigmar Khorne 1080

  • GW is also releasing mega base sets in a plethora of sizes and shapes.
  • LVO Rooms are already over 35% booked out! Do not hesitate to get those rooms, the casino will be fully booked out that weekend.

lvo2016

  • There are some photos of some very cool alternative models for 40k form a company called Wargame Exclusive.

TAU-DEEP-STRIKE-VETERAN-RANGER-BIG-SHAS-1-472x472 s1-472x472 ORK-BIONIC-ARM-Fist-R-472x472 Pin-Up-Commissar-1-472x472 21-472x472 CWarHAlt14-472x354

  • More pics from the upcoming WoW movie of Orgrim. He looks lifelike!

wow

  • Victoria Miniatures show off 10 new Tannenburg Female troopers and they look very cool.

female tannenburg

  • Forgeworld’s latest bulletin shows off a new Mechanicus model, possibly a character, and some vehicle upgrades!

Mechanicus FW upgrades new machanicus FW

  • Halo Fleet Battles are coming in plastic! Veeeery interesting.

halo fleet battles

  • A painted TGITG Iron Empire Regular Trooper model is being shown, and these are just stellar minis.

tgitg1

  • The 40k Card Game: Conquest has a Tyranid expansion on the way called the Great Devourer.

whk08-box-left

  • A new 40k MOBA coming out called Dark Nexus Arena looks like it will be a lot of fun.

nexus1

  • The ATC wrapped up this weekend, and it sounds like it was an absolute blast! We’ll have more complete

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.

  • The BIG news floating around the interwebs today is that there are pictures of Horus Heresy era MKIV Space Marine kits in PLASTIC. Wow, that is awesome.
    • Some appear to be able to make Power Armor and a Cataphracti character in the same kit.
    • Supposedly FW to be available in stores with additional items to support the plastic 30k marines coming in November.
  • Pictures of the new AoS terrain are floating around and they look incredible. Also, pics of the upcoming Paladins with glaives and axes also look incredible.
  • The Stormcast Eternals have a “Chapter Structure” similar to Space Marines.
  • Sylvaneth models on the way which are rumored to be repackagings of the current Wood Elves.

Rant Session

Tactics Corner

Rules Lawyer

Completed Commissions

  • We recently completed a very cool looking Eldar commission. This is level 2, which is fantastic for a better than tabletop quality army. Check us out for your next commission!

DSC_0014DSC_0011 DSC_0018DSC_0008

List Review

Blood Angels

  • Chaplain with Jump Pack, Grav Pistol and Melta bomb.
  • Stormraven gunship with Assault Cannons, Hurricane sponsons and Typhoon missile launcher
  • 2x Death Company Dreads both with Blood Talons, Magna Grapples, Melta and Flamers in Drop Pods with the missile launcher upgrade.
  • 2x 10 man Death Company squad with Jump Packs. A Power Sword, Power Fist and Thunder Hammer.
  • Bolt pistols and chain swords.
  • -with Razorbacks empty with the Twin-Linked Lascannons and Hunter Missiles and Dozer blade upgrades
  • And finally a 10 man squad with Bolters and a Power Fist, in a Rhino with with Storm Bolter and Dozer blade

Tags:

About Reecius

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

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

  1. iNcontroL July 27, 2015 1:04 pm
    #

    GL in the tourney guys.. always like it when you guys compete 🙂 Frankie: Don’t let reece take a bad list then whine.. REECE… go with dark angels or necrons.. one of your GOOD lists you boob.

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 27, 2015 1:06 pm
      #

      Whine? Lol, F you, son! Haha, I may do a lot of things, but that isn’t one of them…except for when my dice turn cold, in which case, i do bitch about it, haha.

      • IndigoJack July 27, 2015 1:35 pm
        #

        Especially when you fail charges. That’s the worst!

        • Reecius
          Reecius July 27, 2015 2:40 pm
          #

          Haha, that drives me crazy!!%)!$#*%*! lol

          • abusepuppy July 27, 2015 6:02 pm
            #

            I would suggest not failing charges, then- it’s a much better tactic than failing them. For one, it gets you into close combat, which can be a big advantage when you’re getting the charging bonus.

          • Reecius
            Reecius July 29, 2015 5:21 pm
            #

            Lol, good advice, AP! hahaha

      • Hotsauceman1 July 27, 2015 7:12 pm
        #

        Reece, Dont listen to him, Take Imperial Guard

  2. tag8833 July 27, 2015 8:28 pm
    #

    Some Ideas for the ITC poll:
    1) Should Maelstrom be scored at end of player turn or end of game turn?
    – Right now there is a strong bias in most missions to go 2nd.

    2) Should Scatter lasers be limited to 1 in 3 bikes.

    3) Should wraith knights have their points adjusted in some fashion?

    4) Should a Decurion style detachment (Warhost) count as all of your detachments? Possibly count as 2 of your 3?

    5) Should detachments that grant free wargear be allowed? Should a detachment tax be added?

    6) Should objective placement be adjusted such that Maelstrom objective are either in No-mans-land, or have a duplicate in each deployment zone?

    7) Should an option be added to the objective “Have a scoring unit at least partially within the enemy deployment zone.” in the case that you roll it on your 1st turn?

    8) Should the Staff of Light be Treated like invisibility for shooting at a unit that activates it (BS:1 rather than snapshoot)?

    9) Should Blessings work on GCs / SHV? Should the Grimoire of true names?

    10) Should FMC’s be able to target the 2nd level of terrain with Template weapons if they are swooping?

    11) Should the 6 result on Strength D shooting attacks do 3 wounds / Hull points instead of 2?

    12) Should we limit the number of Warp Dice?

    13) Should Super Heavy Walkers and Super Heavy Skimmers be allowed on the upper level of terrain? Should GC’s?

    I’ll bet most of these questions would end up with the status quoue, but I also think they might be worth asking. A few more abstract questions would be really interesting, and might help you understand how where to poll in the future. For instance:

    What do you think of the missions?
    A) Perfect No changes
    B) Good but could be better
    C) OK, could use some work
    D) Significant work needed

    What do you think of Super Heavy Lords of War in general?
    A) A great part of the game fun to play against.
    B) They’re OK, but can be unbalanced.
    C) I don’t like them, but don’t think we should restrict them.
    D) More restrictions needed.

    What do you think of the current state of the meta?
    A) I enjoy the current meta
    B) I am ok with the current tournament meta, but would prefer more diversity.
    C) I am ok with the current tournament meta, but there is too much diversity.
    D) I don’t like the current meta

    How do you think the ITC should approach balancing the game?
    A) Make no alterations to balance, RAW is king.
    B) General Rules tweaks like the alteration to Invisibility and S:D are good, but no specific unit adjustments.
    C) Specific unit adjustments are needed.

    • tag8833 July 27, 2015 8:29 pm
      #

      Also:
      Do purchased buildings like a Bastion or a Void Shield Generator award Kill points or 1st blood?

    • abusepuppy July 27, 2015 8:49 pm
      #

      A lot of these feel like things that don’t really need to be voted on- they’re just iterations of “do you want to screw Army X” in one form or another. As no army stands clearly predominant right now, I don’t think there’s really any call to lay down rules changes in the name of balance.

      Changing Maelstrom scoring is one I can see being arguable, however- as noted, it doubles up the advantage of taking the second turn.

      >Do purchased buildings like a Bastion or a Void Shield Generator award Kill points or 1st blood?

      If you’re asking this as a rules question, rather than a “should we change this rule” thing, then the answer is yes- buildings purchased as part of your army are explicitly units and count just like any other unit.

      • tag8833 July 28, 2015 5:50 am
        #

        RE Nerfing specific armies.
        1) ITC does this all the time.
        2) There is a clear imbalance between armies, and there always have been, and there always will be. The rules are too complex for this to not be the case.
        3) I’m a TO, and these are the requests that I get regularly. I’m sure the FLG TO’s get the same requests regularly, even if the poll rules in favor of status quo, by polling it, I can point to poll results which lowers the negativity towards using ITC format at my events. Its not about altering the balance so much as making player feel “Heard and understood”.

        RE buildings.

        They are also Terrain, and Terrain explicitly doesn’t award victory points. An example of another unit in an army that doesn’t award 1st blood or victory points is Tyranid Spore mines.

        It is a rule that is directly contradictory, and since I’ve seen it come up 3 times at ITC events, and ruled both ways, I think it is worth having an official ruling. The direction of the ruling isn’t as important as the consistency of it.

        • abusepuppy July 29, 2015 4:52 pm
          #

          >They are also Terrain, and Terrain explicitly doesn’t award victory points.

          Yes, but buildings purchased for your army are _explicitly_ units. “Terrain doesn’t award victory points” isn’t actually a rule because terrain, typically speaking, cannot be destroyed and is not part of either player’s army. But when it is- such as with buildings- then it can count.

          > I’m sure the FLG TO’s get the same requests regularly,

          People asking for something doesn’t necessarily mean you should give it to them. Most gamers (and other people) are like small children and don’t really know what they want, but they want it RIGHT NOW. The TO’s job should be to moderate this, not cater to their every whim.

          • tag8833 July 30, 2015 6:14 am
            #

            Re: Buildings
            See BRB page 113 in the section: Terrain & Victory Conditions
            “Do not include any Citadel scenery models when awarding Victory Points or determining if a player has any units ‘on the battlefield’.”
            Reminder: Fortifications are Scenery Pieces/Models

            Re: giving people what they want
            I’m not sure where this line of reasoning takes you. Why even do a poll if we should be ignoring community feedback? I run polls at all of my events. I value the feedback of my community.

            You also have to recognize that the ITC audience has a history of rejecting limits on specific armies, and that just asking a question isn’t likely to change anything except for the negative social dynamics TO’s feel from the individuals who feel strongly about that question. It is basically a Win-Win proposition.

            I’m not sure what you fear from asking the questions specifically. Maybe you run an obelisk and fear that allowing Wraith Knights to assault you would be a nerf to your army. (Current FAQ: Obelisk can be on upper levels, Wraith Knights can’t). Maybe you run Scat Bike spam, and would have to changing your list. The thing is, you get a vote too if it gets polled, and just because a question is asked, doesn’t mean a result is preordained.

            I’ve had several lists I was running invalidated by ITC rulings (Tank Traps, Tyrannocytes, Blasts and Levels), and none of them were polled. Trust me, you’d rather have it polled.

  3. Hotsauceman1 July 27, 2015 8:58 pm
    #

    Here is my question for ITC, honest to god.
    “Should Combi-detachments count as one detachments or multiple.”
    and
    “Can, RAW, an IC assault from Deepstrike is he is in a Skyhammer Annhilation force” Because I think I can make a very good argument for why it can.

    • FunkyGroove July 27, 2015 10:49 pm
      #

      I am not sure about the first one, but RAW should answer the second one. The formation is only the devastator and assault squads. Attaching an IC onto the assault squad does not mean they get to benefit from the formation.

      The rule that allows the assault squads to charge does not contain the “at least one model” wording, so the bonus to charge in assault does not transfer to the IC.

      The ruling for deep striking states that those who deep strike cannot charge. The squad would be unable to assault because the IC would be under the effects of this rule.This situation is similar to shooting weapons and assaulting. If a squad fired their assault weapons and one heavy weapon, they would be unable to charge because of the heavy weapon.

      Hope that helps.

      • Hotsauceman1 July 28, 2015 1:53 pm
        #

        Not neccsarily. The RAW says in ic is considered part of the unit for all rules purposes, the formation says assault squads. He is part of the assault squad. And as established, is considered part of it for all rules purposes. So, he can assault as RAW.

        • abusepuppy July 29, 2015 4:53 pm
          #

          But even though he is a part of the Assault Squad, he is NOT part of the formation. The formation rules give their bonuses to the models in the formation- nothing else.

    • tag8833 July 28, 2015 5:51 am
      #

      Up vote on that Skyhammer question. I forgot to include it.

  4. Nightman July 27, 2015 11:21 pm
    #

    We run one maelstrom for assault and one for shooting and i like it. It might be unfair to books without assault (Tau) and could perhaps be unbalanced since there are so many ripple effects when making small changes, but it does beef up diversity for many TAC lists.

  5. Aaron Aleong July 28, 2015 8:01 am
    #

    Team happy won the event. The team was comprised of:

    Tony Grippando
    Justin Curtis
    Tim Gorham
    Aaron Towler
    Aaron Aleong

    Team happy is based out of Chicago and was in 1st place in after every round except after round 3. Team happy played Chicago kamikazes (Alan’s team with Ben) round 4 and took the lead for the rest of the event.

    Thanks to Shane and his team for a great event!

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 28, 2015 9:01 am
      #

      Thank you for clarifying! And congratz to team happy!

  6. Adam
    Adam (thediceabide.com) July 28, 2015 3:41 pm
    #

    Hey Reece, the key you’re missing about the Storm Gladius is that it has 1/2 as many attacks as the Liberator’s Warhammer or Warblade! 🙂

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 31, 2015 8:08 am
      #

      Good point!

  7. Adam
    Adam (thediceabide.com) July 28, 2015 4:16 pm
    #

    Here are my suggested ITC changes:

    1) Remove the restriction on multiple detachments – mostly irrelevant now with so many armies that have multiple types of detachment and/or decurions, would allow older armies to remain relevant, and is how it works in the core 40k rules anyhow.

    2) Remove Allied Detachment of the same faction – unnecessary if you remove multiple detachments, brings the game closer to the core 40k rules and forces people to pay double troop tax to spam more slots of the same army.

    3) BUFF Ranged Destroyer weapons – D2 is a bit heavy handed, bring them up to D3 (solid 3 on the 6), as it is, Torsion Cannons can deal more damage than a Turbo-laser Destroyer, and nobody was complaining about the 2-5 result, it was just the 6 that had people freaking out.

    4) BUFF Invisibility – I hate to say it, but right now I just kinda feel bad for people relying on Invisibility, it’s been made much less relevant with Destroyer weapons in the game, and offers barely any defense to ranged blasts. Maybe reverting it to the old rules, but making it WC3 would be enough to be fine.

    5) Stop using the “Through Attrition, Victory” rule to get extra VP’s for hurting super heavies, it was FAQ’d out of regular 40k for a reason and in ITC format those points are much more meaningful than was ever intended by GW (2 extra points is a full turn of VP’s for maelstrom, where in regular maelstrom 2 was often less than you could score with a single card.

    • Adam
      Adam (Thediceabide.com) July 28, 2015 4:31 pm
      #

      Oh and allow D-99, their army list is totally functional and in-line for this edition, why ban them?

      • Reecius
        Reecius July 28, 2015 4:39 pm
        #

        We asked FW which lists were written for 7th ed, they gave us the two books we have allowed. That simple.

        • Adam
          Adam (Thediceabide.com) July 28, 2015 6:45 pm
          #

          Yeah though by that same argument if you asked GW which books were updated for 7th we wouldn’t have Sisters, Orks, Chaos Marines, Daemons…

          • Hotsauceman1 July 28, 2015 10:24 pm
            #

            *Slow Clap*
            Pretty much, I can see corsairs maybe,
            But C’mon, that reasoning is kinda weird. I never understood it.

          • Adam
            Adam (Thediceabide.com) July 29, 2015 5:21 am
            #

            Yeah, I can see the reasoning behind not allowing some of the really old lists, but D-99 was written in 6e, and has rules covering everything you need to know this edition… It has clear allies selection with HP for its vehicles and was written based on the points of the current AM book. I think a more common sense approach would better serve the community… If they came out with 8e tomorrow would my Renegades and Heretics army suddenly be banned? God I hope not.

          • Hotsauceman1 July 29, 2015 3:13 pm
            #

            The tyranid models in the book are perfectly legal, but the armylist isnt?

  8. McCool July 29, 2015 9:01 am
    #

    ITC Poll possibilities

    Due to more armies getting 300 to 500 free points in upgrades, could we lift the ban on the 400pt Big Mek stompa taken by using Big Mek buzzgob, Buzzgob always dies because superheavies always explode. The requirement for taking the inexpensive stompa is Orks with no allies.

    To speed game play, Necron characters have to roll all look out sir’s before saves on their character that is the nearest model. I have had multiple occasions where a character is in front and it takes over 10 minutes to resolve the 40 wounds on their squad.

    Ad Mech armies must clearly represent their Relics, especially in war convocations (easily done with tokens)

  9. McCool July 29, 2015 7:04 pm
    #

    Some other suggestions,

    Flying monstrous creatures don’t gain cover saves from area terrain while flying

    Gargantuan creatures have to be 25% obscure to gain cover saves.

    Your primary faction in the ITC is based off of the bulk of you points (next season)

  10. tag8833 July 30, 2015 6:16 am
    #

    One more ITC question, though perhaps not for a poll, just for an FAQ.

    Can Marines summon Demons?

    There seems to be disagreement between the paper codex and the digital one.

    • Reecius
      Reecius July 30, 2015 7:34 am
      #

      GW has apparently stated that they can, and that they will be correcting the digital version, soon.

  11. Dalamar July 30, 2015 9:21 am
    #

    Allow Older Formations from apoc sources that are fully rules compatible with 7e main rules.

    d3 wounds on destroyer weapons. or better d2+1 wounds.