Signals from the Frontline #412


Join us for the live show at 11am, PST!

Show Notes







  • New ITC Terrain on the way! We will have additional items up for pre-order in the very near future!

Upcoming ITC Events

  • Check the ITC Home Page for the modifications to scoring for this season.
    • The event multiplier for attendance went up to .0032
    • Bonus points for rounds won went up to 3
    • No half point events for attendance under 16
  • ITC 2016 update poll going out tonight, Monday, Feb 22nd, and will run through Thursday night, Feb 25.
    • Email verification required
    • Number of detachments in ITC events
    • Points limits for large ITC events
    • ITC Faction qualification based on points in detachments
    • Tau rules issues
    • Eldar Corsair rules issues
    • Gargantuan Creature “Toe in Cover” proposed rule change
    • Groups of fortifications
    • And more.
  • New ITC 2016 Missions! These are considered to be in Beta until March 15th, so feel free to play test them and shoot us your feedback in the comments section.

ITC 2016 Scenario Guidelines

ITC 2016 Scenario 1

ITC 2016 Scenario 2

ITC 2016 Scenario 3

ITC 2016 Scenario 4

ITC 2016 Scenario 5

ITC 2016 Scenario 6


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.

  • Deathwatch, Overkill looks like it will be pretty amazing! Deatchwatch named characters, each from a different chapter. And TONS of Genestealer Cult units, now called Broodkin.
    • Genestealer Hybrids, Familiars, Magus, Primarchs, Primus, oh my! Looks too cool for school, rumored to be coming out on the 27th.
  • Tons of rumors coming out about the new Ork formations in the rumored new campaign book.
    • Ork decurion with a slew of new formations.
  • More rumors of a follow up to the Betrayal at Calth box set, said to be coming out in Fall with more plastic Horus Heresy goodies!

Rant Session

Tactics Corner

Rules Lawyer

  • Daemon decurion further issues and rules debates.

Completed Commissions

P1070722P1070720 P1070716 P1070714 P1070706 P1070703 P1070700 P1070699

List Review

  • HQ
  • Big Mek, Shokk Attack Gun, Git Finda, ‘Finkin Kap
  • Big Mek, Shokk Attack Gun, Git Finda,
  • Troops
  • Gretchin x10
  • Gretchin x10
  • Elites
  • Tankbustaz x10
  • Tankbustaz x10
  • Heavy Support
  • Gun Wagons, Ram x2
  • Kustom Mega Blasta x1
  • Kustom Mega Blasta x1
  • LOW
  • Buzzgob’s Stompa
  • [Formation]
  • Ghazghul’s Bully Boyz in Trukks, and 1 killsaw


About Reecius

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

70 Responses to “Signals from the Frontline #412”

  1. Bogalubov February 22, 2016 11:35 am #

    I generally really like the changes to the missions and scoring for this year. I would have preferred if the maelstrom went to the card based version where you score turn wins instead of a cumulative score. It would allow for deck building so armies could complete army specific missions and be rewarded for staying within their play style. Right now, all the missions favor one specific build. MSU. But I realize that my favored approach would be a drastic change that would require re-configuring all aspects of the missions.

    However, I still don’t understand maelstrom mission 6. Have 3 of your own units in your deployment zone and none of the enemy’s. I could have 20 units in my deployment zone, but if I don’t blow up every single drop pod I still fail. If this is supposed to be a bone to static armies, wouldn’t it make more sense if it said “more of your units than the enemy’s” or “have 3 more units than your enemy in your deployment zone”?

    • Reecius February 22, 2016 12:05 pm #

      Glad you like the changes! And we decided to steer away from cards so folks didn’t need them to play ITC missions, which would be a deterrent to folks that didn’t have them.

      Mission 6 is a reverse linebreaker objective, it is a benefit to sit and shoot armies, not a negative. Linebreaker is hard for sit and shoot armies to get. This one benefits you for staying in your deployment zone, but as you are already there, there must be some conditional to getting the point or it becomes an automatic. If you keep the enemy out of your deployment zone, you get the point, which is the intent of it. If it went on having more units, it would then be a benefit to MSU lists, which you note. We tried to structure half of the missions to be oriented towards MSU, half not.

      • Bogalubov February 22, 2016 12:53 pm #

        Thanks for the response! I’m a big a fan of what you guys have done for the community with the investment of your personal time.

        I think I understand the intent of maelstrom mission 6. I just think that the counter to it is too easy to achieve. The need for only 1 enemy unit to disrupt your backfield no matter how many units you have seems too low. That’s why I think a difference in the number of units would be better.

        A fast MSU army has no problem burning a few units to keep me from achieving this mission. But if they needed to send more units that would end up getting killed, it would be less of a no brainer.

        • Reecius February 22, 2016 12:55 pm #

          Well, in the new rules you can choose not to take that mission =)

  2. Codi February 22, 2016 12:08 pm #

    Thanks for reviewing my list. The Shook attack guns go with the mek guns.

    I agree a KFF would be nice, I am trying to use the shook attack guns, and I ran out of points.

    • Reecius February 22, 2016 1:05 pm #

      Fair play! Looks like a lot of fun and quite effective, too!

  3. Adam ( February 22, 2016 12:15 pm #

    Question about the dealing HP to a Super Heavy. For the destroy enemy unit, it says they must do 3 HP that turn to get the point. Does that mean, if a Knight has only 1 HP remaining at the start of that turn and the enemy deals 1 point to finish it off, do they not score the objective since they did not deal 3 HP of damage during that turn?

    • jy2 February 22, 2016 12:23 pm #

      It doesn’t say you have to do it in 1 turn. If you did 2HP to the Knight before and then do 1 HP to it later, that would satisfy the requirement of doing 3HP to the (same) Knight.

      • Reecius February 22, 2016 12:57 pm #

        Jim has it, I will clarify. I know that one will take some getting used to.

      • Adam ( February 22, 2016 3:30 pm #

        So if a knight suffers 2 HP, then repairs one, does it take dealing another 2 to get the point (which would total 4-1) or would dealing 1 more suffice?

        Similarly, if the knight suffers 3 HP and gives up it’s point, but then heals one, would it give up a point again after only suffering 1 more HP of damage (which would bring it back to suffering 3 HP).

        It also sounds like from that description that you could score points retroactively? Like you dealt 3 points of damage to a knight then next turn you rolled up the Destroy Enemy Unit… If it doesn’t have to be done in the same turn, what turns does it have to be done in?

        Do you get the point each time you cross the 3 HP threshold, making it possible for an Imperial Knight to potentially be worth 6 Kill Points if it repairs a point every turn? If it suffers 3 HP, then heals back a point, does it give up another KP once it suffers 1 more HP?

        It seems that you’ll have to keep track of total HP suffered, as well as total HP recovered separately, plus the amount of actual HP it has remaining.

        Maybe I’m over complicating it, but I’m just trying to figure out how it’s supposed to work in the new ITC rules, haha.

        • Bogalubov February 22, 2016 3:57 pm #

          Last section on LoWs:

          Note: Any damage done to a specific Super Heavy or Gargantuan Creature Lord of War is cumulative, even if they heal wounds or Hull Points by some means. This would effectively increase the number of Kill Points they could give up.

          I think the most appropriate question is, do we round up or down for hull point damage that’s not divisible by 3. The Stormsurge example provided seems to indicate we would round down.

          So an example of a knight with 6 hull points. It loses 2 hull points first turn, this equals 0 kill points. It heals one back and turn 2 loses 4 additional hull points. Overall it’s given up 2 kill points as it’s lost 6 hull points. However, if both maelstrom missions were “kill a unit”, did the 4 hull points of damage suffered turn 2 equate to both maelstrom missions being fulfilled?

        • Reecius February 22, 2016 4:03 pm #

          You are most certainly over-complicating it, lol. But, I will continue to refine the language to make it easier to read.

          For every 3 Wounds/HP you deal in damage to a LoW, it counts as a KP for mission objectives where that matters, rounding up remaining wounds to the nearest multiple of 3 (Stormsurge is worth 3 KP, for example).

          For a wound healed to a GMC/SH they effectively add to the total HP/Wounds it has.

          Example: A Knight is healed for 1 HP at some point in the game, he can potentially give up 3 KP in total if destroyed.

          If the same Knight somehow regained 4 HP, it would potentially give up 4 KP in total.

          It only gets confusing when you can repair or heal them, this isn’t very common so it won’t come up that frequently.

          • Adam ( February 22, 2016 4:31 pm

            I think the bigger issue is with the Destroy an Enemy Unit maelstrom, since KP are calculated at the end of the game, that makes it a bit easier, but the Malestrom are tricky.

            Here’s what I mean:

            Turn 1:
            Player A shoots 2 HP off of Player B’s Knight.
            Player B’s knight repairs 1 HP.

            Turn 2:
            Player A rolls “Destroy Enemy Unit”, and deals 1 HP to Player B’s Knight.

            Does Player A fulfill their requirements for Destroy Enemy Unit? They have dealt a total of 3 HP to that knight, but at no point did the knight have 3 points of damage on it.

            Another Scenario:

            Turn 1:
            Player A shoots 3 HP off of Player B’s Knight.
            Player B’s knight repairs 1 HP.

            Turn 2:
            Player A rolls “Destroy Enemy Unit”, and deals 1 HP to Player B’s Knight.

            Does Player A then score Maelstrom since the knight was brought under 3 points, then was dealt a 3rd point again?

            I think if you changed it to this, it would be far easier to understand for Maelstrom:

            Deal 3+ HP/W to a Super-heavy, or kill a super-heavy, in that turn, to qualify for Destroy an Enemy Unit.

            This would mean a knight with 1 HP remaining would still give up a KP when it suffers it’s last point, but would be a lot easier to keep track of.

          • Reecius February 22, 2016 4:33 pm

            I changed the verbiage to hopefully address some of the ambiguity.

          • Adam ( February 22, 2016 4:54 pm

            Awesome, that’s much better. From what I can tell, it means you only get the Maelstrom Point, if you did the 3rd (or multiple of 3) cumulative point of damage during the turn you have the Destroy an Enemy Unit objective.

            The KP part also seems a little odd with remainders. 7 HP to an Atrapos is worth 3 KP, since it only has 7 HP, but 7 W to a Storm Surge is worth 2, since it has 8 and would still be alive?

          • Reecius February 22, 2016 4:57 pm

            Yes, the remainder of wounds throws it off a bit, but that was the compromise.

  4. fluger February 22, 2016 12:22 pm #

    I must be stupid, can’t find the link for the poll…

    • jy2 February 22, 2016 12:25 pm #

      It’s not out yet.

      If you read the above, they say its coming out tonight.

      • fluger February 22, 2016 12:45 pm #

        Ergo my stupidity! 😀

        Much thanks.

  5. jy2 February 22, 2016 12:26 pm #

    I like the new Mission Objectives and changes.

    Very good work, Reece & company!

  6. tag8833 February 22, 2016 12:27 pm #

    The missions are a significant improvement. 2 things that I think should be clarified:

    1) Scenario #3, Objective #6. Is that true deployment zone (Vanguard Deployment), or is it 12″ from deployment edge?
    2) King of the hill. Because you can now tie this objective, does that mean if neither player has a unit within 6″ of the center, that they tie 0-0 and both earn a point for it?

    My other observation is a bit of a fear based on my 1st reading. I think the gambling part of the missions are more likely to be used by super mobile Eldar / Battle Company armies to run up the score, instead of getting used by an army that is behind to catch up. With the Objective Placement rules resulting in many situations where a less mobile army might get even more toasted by super fast Eldar Warp Spiders and Jetbikes. I need to do some playtesting to verify this, but it would be a shame if the new missions were as much of a boost to Eldar as I think they will be.

    • jy2 February 22, 2016 12:31 pm #

      1) By RAW, deployment zone is your deployment zone, not 12″ from the deployment edge. Contrast that with the Linebreaker Maelstrom, where is specifically says 12″ from deployment edge.

      2) I think the way people were playing it at the LVO was that if you tied, then both players got the point for it.

      • tag8833 February 22, 2016 4:47 pm #

        1) I figure was a typo, because everything else references deployment edge rather than deployment zone. I know what it means by RAW. I also saw in the finals at LVO the judges came by and said ignore RAW in favor of Deployment Edge. Most ITC events I’ve been to, the judges have changed it to deployment edge either in the player packet, or with an announcement like they did at LVO. If this isn’t a Typo, I’d like to know, so that I quit correcting it in the player packets at my events.

        2) Yes, ties count. But my question was, “is 0-0 a tie”?, Because as it is worded it would be, but I doubt that was intentional.

        • Reecius February 22, 2016 4:54 pm #

          Fixed that typo on scenario #3.

          0-0 is not considered a tie, but worth specifying.

    • Reecius February 22, 2016 1:04 pm #

      Eh, destroying units is just as much a part of it, so MSU armies are vulnerable to that. In our test games, it hasn’t been more of an advantage for MSU that it was prior, and gave more offensively focused armies the ability to focus on killing stuff for max points. Play them though, let us know what you think. We have a while before we cement them in place.

  7. Jural February 22, 2016 12:39 pm #

    Wow- the Tyranid Hierodules will become unplayable under the proposed change, which sucks. But all in all I don’t think it’s overwhelmingly bad for the hobby. (Just toe in cover for Gargantuan’s being considered here.)

    Can’t wait for the poll and results!

    • Reecius February 22, 2016 12:59 pm #

      He won’t be unplayable at all, just take some adjustment. Besides, with the amount of Ignores Cover in the game at present (looking at you, stupid Hunter’s Eye!) it’s a struggle to make the Heirodule work, anyway, IMO

      • nathan February 22, 2016 6:21 pm #

        If there is enough ignores cover in the game for a heiroduyle to not be a probelm, it shouldn’t be a problem to deal with a stormsurge either, invul save or not, and this tore in cover argument is just people wanting to nerf things they don’t like dealing with instead of a rules or balance issue. I’m not really a fan of this.

    • Frozocrone February 22, 2016 3:35 pm #

      I would gladly take a nerf for my Hierodule if it meant Wraithknights couldn’t claim an obnoxious save.

      Would this vote on toe in cover extend to Monstrous Creatures and/or Flying Monstrous Creatures? Even though I play Tyranids as a main there is a still a huge power level difference between MC’s and Vehicles.

  8. Drachnyen February 22, 2016 12:40 pm #

    One small comment concerning how scoring is calculated in 2016.

    Scoring is based on player turns instead of complete game turns. I feel overall game experience can be improved by changing scoring to complete game turns. Here’s my quick explanation.

    If scoring is based on player turns, the player that goes second is ALWAYS in a bad position.

    Round 1 – Start of game: The player that will go first will always automatically score his points since the opponent did not play yet and cannot control/deny objectives.

    If the first player has droppods, he can drop in and control the other player’s objective at the start of the game.

    When second player starts his round, he already needs to fight to control his own objectives and try to move towards new objectives.

    And this goes on every round. First player moves and captures. Second player is never able to deny a point and has to “work” to capture objectives. Its always harder for a second turn player to capture objectives and score points.

    I feel game would be much more challenging if you could deny a point by calculating scoring at the end of the turn instead of each player’s turn. This would also make some great strategies to be used (Do I cap something or do I prevent my opponent from capping his)

    • Bogalubov February 22, 2016 12:58 pm #

      I’m pretty sure that you score at the beginning of the following player turn. So Player 1 wouldn’t score his objectives until Top of Turn 2.

      This way the second player gets to act at the Bottom of Turn 1 to block Player 1.

    • Reecius February 22, 2016 1:02 pm #

      You score at the beginning of your next player turn, before generating new Maelstrom points. Both players have a fair shake, Player 1 gets a bit of an advantage at the end of the game and beginning, but this counters the advantage the player going second gets for end of game missions.

      • Drachnyen February 22, 2016 1:07 pm #

        True! Thanks for the clarifications.

        So why not change it to turn base then since its almost the same thing? That way both players rolls at the same time and everybody knows what is their objectives (again to plan counters and offense accordingly). Makes it simple and fast.

        • winterman February 22, 2016 1:32 pm #

          That wouldn’t be a change — that is exactly how it worked in 2015.

        • Reecius February 22, 2016 2:08 pm #

          That’s what we did before, but the #1 complaint we had about ITC missions was the way we scored Maelstrom points. This is what folks asked for but as you note, it is not actually much of a change in application, more so in perception.

  9. fluger February 22, 2016 12:55 pm #

    How do you score 3 objectives in Mission 2? The relic and then the two others?

    • Bogalubov February 22, 2016 12:59 pm #

      The relic counts as an objective now.

    • jy2 February 22, 2016 1:02 pm #

      Yes! The Relic is an objective also.

      • Reecius February 22, 2016 1:02 pm #

        Indeed! I can’t tell you how many people end up losing the Relic because they don’t know that.

  10. Hotsauceman1 February 22, 2016 1:37 pm #

    Im liking that the mealstrom will be more equal now between players.
    am also liking that many armies got a buff from these missions.
    BUT, its gonna be hard to change lol.

    And im gonna miss the store 🙁 Lotsa memories there. The 40k games, the drinking, The late night pathfinder games, the drunken hobos……the nearly getting hit by a car everytime I go downthere, the smell from the marina, the crackladies, the people that lived upstairs…….actually thank god its going. Martinez sucks

    • Reecius February 22, 2016 2:05 pm #

      We’ll miss you too, buddy! The store in NorCal will always have some great memories for us.

  11. winterman February 22, 2016 1:38 pm #

    I really really like the proposed mission changes. I was hoping the line breaker maelstrom and inverse line breaker maelstroms would be replaced with some alternatives in a few missions (these favor eldar and battle company something fierce). But other than that everything I would have proposed or have tweaked myself in the past is in here. Great job.

    • Bogalubov February 22, 2016 1:52 pm #

      I agree on your suggested mission changes, but as Reece points out above, at least you can chuck those now.

    • Reecius February 22, 2016 2:08 pm #

      Glad you like them! And we still have some time to adjust, if we can come up with a reasonable board control substitute for some of the linebreaker/anti-linebreaker Maelstrom objectives, we’re open to it.

  12. Sheit27 February 22, 2016 1:50 pm #

    So no more penalty for running lords of war because the hullpoints/wounds only count for kill points / towards maelstorm objectives.

    Incoming warlord spam

    • Reecius February 22, 2016 2:06 pm #

      You can still only take 1 unit of them outside of Knight armies, so there won’t be a huge increase in them, IMO. Hopefully we’ll see player take more flavorful versions such as Baneblades. Eldar players were already taking Wraithknights, so no change there. But the KP penalty is significant in those missions, you may be underselling that.

      • Sheit27 February 22, 2016 2:23 pm #

        oh for sure, you roll 2 kill missions, opt for the 3 pointer and just knock our a stormsurge in one turn. I was just saying with no additional tax outside of the +1 seize people will probably be taking them more often if they weren’t already

        I’m curious about rounding the 8 wounds to count for 3 KP because I’m not sure how much other stuff this effects.

        If a model had 7 wounds would you still round it up?

        you’re likely to hear a “tau nerf” cry out of this.

        • Bogalubov February 22, 2016 2:28 pm #

          Superheavies didn’t sink maelstrom only by costing points. They’re also pretty bad about at accumulating them. So although they don’t negatively influence the secondary mission anymore, they’ll still struggle to earn maelstrom points.

          Not only that, but if people vote for a points drop, taking a super heavy negatively affects taking a rounded list too.

          That’s why I would not anticipate a huge rise in SHs with the changes.

          • Sheit27 February 22, 2016 2:37 pm

            295 points for a wraithknight isn’t very expensive in 1500.

            I just played a 1500 ITC this weekend (OK wooden spoon) and there was a ork stompa – how many players will have a list prepared to deal with 12 hull points with a d6 void shield charge and 2 repair rerolls?

            about the rounding though, as far as I’m aware – the only thing that it hurts is a stormsurge.

            wraithknight – 6 wounds

            imperial knight – 6 hull points

            stompa – 12 hull points

            baneblade – 9 hull points

            Stormsurge – 8 wounds

            I think the brass scorpion has 9?

          • Bogalubov February 22, 2016 2:42 pm

            Well at least we get to vote on toe in cover for GMCs so that takes away from the durability of the wraith knights.

  13. Novastar February 22, 2016 2:31 pm #

    So if I can repair the hull points on my knight will that negate my opponent scoring the points?

    • Bogalubov February 22, 2016 2:34 pm #

      Last section on LoWs:

      Note: Any damage done to a specific Super Heavy or Gargantuan Creature Lord of War is cumulative, even if they heal wounds or Hull Points by some means. This would effectively increase the number of Kill Points they could give up.

    • John McCool February 22, 2016 2:37 pm #

      If you look at the ITC format, they don’t use war of attrition. They only say you gain a bonus maelstrom point for each 3 wounds or hull points. If it were war of attrition, it would go on to say that repaired or regained wouldn’t count.

      • Adam ( February 22, 2016 3:33 pm #

        They changed how that whole thing works, it’s pretty confusing now, but hey, anything is better than the old War of Attrition rule that even GW took out of the game. 🙂

        • Reecius February 22, 2016 3:57 pm #

          Well, it may be written in a confusing manner, but it’s very clear in my mind, haha!

        • Adam ( February 22, 2016 4:31 pm #

          I’m sure GW says the same thing all the time! Hahaha. 🙂

          • Reecius February 22, 2016 4:32 pm

            I’m sure they do, lol

    • Reecius February 22, 2016 3:57 pm #

      No, it does not negate points. I knew this would be the section generating the most questions, but we’ll smooth it out.

  14. Kwodd February 22, 2016 4:11 pm #

    Missions and scoring look great guys, can’t wait to vote on points.

  15. 1PlusArmour February 22, 2016 4:27 pm #

    Great stuff guys, looking forward to the poll and a great 2016 season! We’ve already got a lot of events planned!

    • Reecius February 22, 2016 4:33 pm #

      Awesome! Let us know if we can help any of them become a Major!

  16. Turok117 February 22, 2016 5:33 pm #

    I am curious why you decided to go with the three point maelstrom missions you did. When I first heard you mention the idea I figured that, instead of dropping one of the three when you rolled, you would just keep all three for an all or nothing three points. For instance, if I rolled Kill a Unit, Hold Objective 1, and Linebreaker, I could choose to keep all three instead of dropping one.

    Just going off my gut feeling, holding three objectives through your opponents turn seems maybe just a little bit too unachievable, while killing three units, for some armies at least, seems a little too easy, especially since between the time you roll for that maelstrom and “complete” it your opponent has no chance to respond.

    Did the first way of doing it come up and get rejected or not come up at all? Anyway just curious as I said. Thanks!

  17. westrider February 22, 2016 8:19 pm #

    A couple of random things I noticed:

    It looks like Fortifications have been brought in line with 7th Ed and are now Deployed with the rest of the Army. Is this correct?

    Is there some reason that the Emperor’s Will Objectives are numbered 3 in Mission 1? I don’t see anywhere that an Objective 3 matters.

    LoW Example currently lists the Knight as having 3HP total.

    Overall, they look like there’s some really good potential here. I look forward to getting to try them out.

  18. bigpig February 23, 2016 12:03 am #

    For ease of record keeping; Identify your 3 point Maelstrom objectives as #7 and #8 respectively. Also, make it clear in the mission briefing it is an “either or” option.

  19. RauPow February 24, 2016 3:23 am #

    The previously-named Primary Mission is now Dawn of War. Should it not be Eternal War?

  20. MLKTH February 24, 2016 6:08 am #

    How do you score maelstrom on the last game turn, when there’s no “next turn” to score them on?

  21. FM February 24, 2016 5:44 pm #

    Sense Dark Star collapsed (for the better IMO), you should give the GT or Grand GT high level event to the Renegade or WaaaghFest (if you can get them to go 2 days. They just upped to 64 players today from 48 because it sold out). Both are still based in MN.

Leave a Reply