Signals from the Frontline #542: ITC 8th ed 40k Updates Explained

Join us for the live show on our Twitch channel by following this link! The show starts at 11am, PST.

Show Notes

Date: 6-23-17


  • 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
  • You think Reecius’ T-Shirts are cool? Buy yours, here!


  •  SoCal Open blowing up with 8th edition! Make sure to grab a ticket, soon!

  • The ITC Industrial Set and Industrial FLG Mat are now up for pre-order! Grab yours, today. These will start shipping June 30th.

Upcoming ITC Events

ITC 8th Edition Update

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.


About Reecius

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

60 Responses to “Signals from the Frontline #542: ITC 8th ed 40k Updates Explained”

  1. WestRider June 23, 2017 10:49 am #

    Is there a text version of the updates available for those of us with hearing issues?

  2. GeekmasterK June 23, 2017 10:57 am #

    So, this question got missed in chat, but I was wondering if Ynnari counts as its own faction now, given the way keywords work.

    • Reecius June 23, 2017 11:04 am #

      Yeah, they are in the Aeldari super-faction but your entire army has to be Ynnari, so they may as well be their own faction.

      • jmanj321 June 24, 2017 2:25 pm #

        Hey Reece, just to clarify, if I want to run a Ynnari army, I would have to be all Ynnari, but I could technically run Ycarne in an Aeldari formation and not count the whole formation as Ynnari? Thus keeping all individual rules and abilities?

    • winterman June 23, 2017 11:45 am #

      Similar q for mixed GSC and Tyranids (and IG). Also could such a list end up being IG in ITC due to points?

      • Reecius June 23, 2017 1:24 pm #

        GSC is the weird one. But, by our current standards if your largest detachment is Astra Militarum Key Word, then yes.

  3. Mike June 23, 2017 12:32 pm #

    Actually, I have a suggestion for deployment zone/first turn choices: A hidden simultaneous bid of command points.

    You’d get to your table, see other guy’s army list and how many cp he has, then you’d secretly bid a cp amount (most easily by covering a hand over a die) and reveal at the same
    Time. Both players lose the cp they bid, and whoever bid higher chooses their deployment zone. This process happens again for first turn choice. In the case of a tie, just roll off.

    I think it would present an interesting non-random way to determine the pre-game setups that can sometimes be incredibly important for some armies. Armies that heavily desire going first or second could do something about it other than roll and pray, but at the cost of possibly not having much cp to use in the game-proper.

    • Reecius June 23, 2017 1:24 pm #

      A few people have brought that up. Thanks for suggesting it, we will give it consideration.

    • Adam (RUMBL & TheDiceAbide) June 23, 2017 2:12 pm #

      I’m not sure about that, some armies can easily get significantly more CP than the other.

      • Reecius June 23, 2017 2:25 pm #

        Yeah, the obvious avenue for gamesmanship is to max out MSU on 3 battalions or a Brigade and then get the benefit of that list style AND first turn.

        However, as a concept it is cool, but in practice I don’t think it avoids the same issue of gamesmanship.

        I think the first turn really has to have a random element to it or it will be gamed by high level players every time. It’s too powerful a benefit not to.

        • Narfwak June 23, 2017 7:27 pm #

          Just as an example of an army that might want to go first but have lots of CPs to wager – 3 battalions of Tau, 9 quadmanders, 9 strike teams, a few more support dudes, first turn deep strike hell. Ordinarily having 18+ drops would put them at a severe disadvantage to going first, but if you just wagered CPs you could throw quite a few out the window and not really care.

          It’s a cool idea, but it seems too easy to game the system for extra CPs.

  4. Codi June 23, 2017 1:41 pm #

    I appreciate what you guys do; and I am glad to see the extensive ITC FAQ go away. However I wish you would have given RAW a chance in terms of book missions.

    • Mike June 23, 2017 2:00 pm #

      they did. They’ve been play testing for much longer than we’ve had the boos.

      • Reecius June 23, 2017 2:15 pm #

        Codi, feel free to play the missions as you like but as Mike noted, the folks that have been doing what Frankie I have done have a LOT of reps on the missions. Like, more than most gamers will ever play in 8th for the entire length of the edition. We universally agreed that the go first mechanic was a bit skewed and I think at this point I don’t have to explain the balance concerns with Kill points, right? I can if it is unclear, though.

        • Codi June 24, 2017 8:17 am #

          It is not that I don’t understand the changes or even why you made them; I also understand that you guys have more reps in. I even understand that I can play Warhammer however I want to. I just would have preferred that you would have given the community a chance to play the missions as written in a tournament setting before setting the precedent that you did.

          I will say that the change you made to “No Mercy” sounds like a fun way to do it; and in general I prefer missions with a Maelstrom and Eternal War element. I also expect that our local group will not stick to the book mission indefinitely; but we are not planning to deviate until we have some reps in first.

          • Reecius June 25, 2017 8:23 am

            We’ll add in some more complex options for missions, these are just the get started missions. Appreciate the feedback, though!

      • Heldericht June 23, 2017 5:45 pm #

        Them playtesting does not invalidate community opinion. Playtesters are not infallible.

        This should have been a community decision after BAO. You do all this talk about GW turning a new leaf and engaging the community, then just changing stuff without giving it a chance.

        Why even pretend its a community driven format? Seems like its a council comp system now.

        This is coming after I supported ITC all of last edition even when I didnt agree with some rulings. Because the community spoke on them.

        • Reecius June 25, 2017 8:29 am #

          Of course we’re not perfect. Wasn’t trying to big league anybody or anything.

          And I see where you are coming from but I ask you to consider why we would be doing something like this taking into account our relationship with them. The answers are there.

          As for voting on tournament format? Sure, that’s what we do. In this specific instance though, people had events this weekend, they needed answers right away. We didn’t have time to let people practice and then vote, etc. We had to move quick, so we did.

  5. Adam (RUMBL & TheDiceAbide) June 23, 2017 2:22 pm #

    Now that the seal is broken, what do you think of the FW knights?

    Also, what are your feelings about LOW restrictions in ITC? I don’t think IK are a problem (obviously, they’re the only army I own anymore, lol), but things like Warhounds and Revenants may be a bit much for regular play, even triple brass scorpions for that matter…

    • Reecius June 23, 2017 2:26 pm #

      We have not finalized our stance on LoW, yet.

      I tend to agree with you, though.

      • Heldericht June 23, 2017 4:59 pm #

        I REALLY hope you guys dont ban the Supremacy again after they’ve doubled the cost of it, which was the complaint last edition… Same stats as an Imperial Knight but with savior protocol and triple the cost of one.

        Dont screw over Tau players again please. They are NOT the same class as Warhounds.

        Inb4 Tau is fine, L2Play.

        • Adam (RUMBL) June 23, 2017 10:52 pm #

          Same stats as an imperial knight? I’ll have some of whatever you’re smoking! The sucker is 1200 points for a reason, much closer to a warhound in cost and capability than an imperial knight… it’s no more screwing over Tau than disallowing a Warhound would be screwing over all imperials.

    • Heldericht June 23, 2017 5:02 pm #

      I think triple knights is certainly a problem and forgeworld units often solve it by giving factions a fighting chance. You just shift the balance towards the knights by banning fw.

  6. Shas'O June 23, 2017 2:49 pm #

    Thanks for the clarification on deployment; I love your solution!

    I do miss the modified malestrom though. It was a fun mechanic that led to lots of mid game strategy.

  7. Dbiesto June 23, 2017 4:29 pm #

    So if I’m reading correctly knights won’t always go first they just get +1? Seems fair since they almost always deploy first. Also, each knight is now only 1 kill point, so if you can’t table a knight army, most likely he will have more kill points in the missions? I think it’s doable in the new rules. Definitely glad it isn’t auto first turn in the itc.

  8. Dbiesto June 23, 2017 4:36 pm #

    Just reread so its power levels not units for kill points. That is way more balanced.

  9. Ujayim June 23, 2017 6:22 pm #

    How will PL work for horrors? doesnt seem their costs are balanced with split or their different forms, at all

    • Dbiesto June 23, 2017 7:49 pm #

      All horrors are listed as PL 5 for 10 in any combination so you can have a mixed mob. Up to 10 additional would be PL 10 or 21-30 PL 15 for the squad.

      • Ujayim June 23, 2017 8:00 pm #

        Seems to put Tzeentch at a serious disadvantage for using their troop choice.

        • Dbiesto June 23, 2017 8:10 pm #

          You can use any combination of models in each squad. I’m not seeing a disadvantage. You can usually make exactly a 2000 point list easier because you can mix points costs. How is that a disadvantage?

          • Ujayim June 24, 2017 4:47 am

            Because by using power levels, a system that does not take one of the only mixed cost units into the game, a 20pt unit is worth the same as a 100pt unit. Five units of horrors, which could run between 100-500pts, have the same PL as a Knight. This is a scenario entirely unique to horrors, as power level does not seem to have been balanced at all for matched play.

          • WestRider June 24, 2017 8:11 am

            Power Level was explicitly not balanced for Match Play. There’s no “seems” about it.

          • Ujayim June 24, 2017 3:05 pm

            I was being generous.

          • Threllen June 26, 2017 6:34 am

            They’ve already come out and said power level is just an average of all the combinations a unit could take. So the “power level” for a unit of horrors is the average of taking 10 brims (cheapest) or 10 horrors (most expensive). Obviously for a unit with such disparate points values, that creates a bad approximation.

            This is why they’ve never claimed power level to be a competitive measure. It works great for casaual/narrative games but obviously can be gamed to a high degree by smart players. It incentivizes players to max out upgrades as much as possible since they don’t cost anything and it also makes units with lots of options better than those without. Since you have the most room to upgrade past the average value.

          • Cephalobeard June 26, 2017 7:40 am

            Right. However, now, we’re using that PL to represent KP. That’s why the question exists.

          • Threllen June 26, 2017 8:06 pm

            It’s not a perfect situation but it’s:
            A) Much easier than trying to add up actual points values and considering those “kill points”
            B) Much better than using straight up unit kill points. Unless they get tabled an Imperial Knights army is never going to lose a kill points battle as it stands. Use “power” as KP instead and suddenly they’re mortal.

            In my opinion it’s a quick and easy solution to at least make something better than just one point per unit. Hopefully the ITC comes out with their own advanced missions like they had before with a mix of kill points and objectives so the point even becomes more moot when kill points aren’t the only way to score.

  10. Danden June 24, 2017 10:35 am #

    Hello glorious FLG gods!

    What is gonna be your stance on the FW Relic rule? As it stands, taking any FW SH LoW that is a Relic requires taking two other LoW due to detachment restrictions. This makes it literally impossible to field them in ITC all while Chaos will be able to field the same models without issue since they do not have the relic rule ( I dont mind there being differences between chaos and imperium but please dont force my Iron Hands to change their allegiance…. ).

    • Reecius June 25, 2017 8:22 am #

      Hang tight on that one, I believe the answer will come, soon =)

  11. BoyProdigy June 24, 2017 11:46 am #

    As a Corsair player what will our scores be lumped into? Although not a list in itself Forgeworld have keyworded all corsair units as “Anhrathe”. It is possible to build a list and have Anhrathe qualify as your faction under Aeldari.

    • Reecius June 24, 2017 12:52 pm #

      Yup, I will get that one added and good question.

  12. Michael Corr June 24, 2017 1:32 pm #

    Think using the power level as the Kill Points is an awesome idea. I was so sick of kill point games that were a forgone conclusion before you even roll any dice thanks to severely uneven kill points on each side. This seems like a great way to try and even things up.

    • Kevin Lantz June 24, 2017 1:59 pm #

      yeah kill points has always pissed me off, victory points, power levels, points whatever ok makes sense, points of models kill etc good influence… but “I killed x units, even if they were free or no points…” whatever

    • Reecius June 24, 2017 4:19 pm #

      Agreed and glad you like it!

  13. The Drunken War Bee June 24, 2017 7:23 pm #

    Why not just have the person who deploys last seize the initiative on a 5+? That would give each player a similar chance to go first as your system, but be less complicated and require less rolls. (By my calculations, with your system, the player who finishes deploying first has about a 62% chance of going first.)

    • Reecius June 25, 2017 8:15 am #

      Neither way is very complex, honestly. It’s rolling 1 die or two. The issue with a bonus to seize though is that it is not future proofed against things that manipulate the seize roll. We already have a character that does so on a 4+, and I am sure more things like that will come in time. Therefore, best to keep them separate, IMO.

  14. Horton June 25, 2017 3:24 am #

    I am not doubting your experience as playtesters, and I truly appreciate all that you do for the community, but I must express that as a TO, I have no intention to change the first turn mechanic. My group and the groups I regularly communicate with have had dozens of people playing dozens of games since release and have had 0 issues with the first turn rules in the rulebook. We quite enjoy it and find that it really balances things.

    • Reecius June 25, 2017 8:12 am #

      Then rock it how you like to play it. The cool thing about the ITC is that you are free to participate on your terms =)

      Glad your group is having fun.

  15. Anon June 25, 2017 10:11 am #

    Still confused about faction points. Even with the document.

    It says my most expensive detachment in which ALL units have the same specific faction keyword. But I can make say, an imperial detachment with all kinds of different “specific keywords”.

    How does it work if say, all my detachments are Imperial, but are a mix of Space Marines, Mechanicus, and Guard? I have no detachment in which all models have the same specific keyword.

    Does it then fall to the most common specific keyword? Or do I just get no faction points?

    • Joshua June 25, 2017 1:47 pm #

      Your points would go under the Imperium Faction.

  16. Nathan June 25, 2017 8:39 pm #


    I don’t usually post but I wanted to take a moment to say thank you for getting this to us so quickly. It’s just what we were looking for and answered the concerns that our players were beginning to voice.

    Thanks to this I am feeling way more confident as TO. All the content you’ve been putting out over the last month has gone a long way in helping direct and mold our fledgling store’s tournament scene. I can’t wait to see what’s coming next.

    Also, I will let you know what the players think about the fixed objectives after a few games. Where can I leave that feedback?

  17. Tnid June 26, 2017 12:57 am #

    Who paints their space marines beige? Heresy….

  18. Yonas June 26, 2017 6:07 am #

    Adepta Sororitas are listed under both their own faction and imperial agents in the factions spreadsheet. Is this intentional?

    Also, it would be nice if the chapters that have special characters through forge world were listed under the Adeptus Astartes banner, if only for stat-tracking purposes – would be cool to see who the best Minotaurs player is, for instance.

  19. gallenphillips June 26, 2017 6:16 am #

    Love Lias Issodon, but, sadly, you can’t include centurions in his special rule. No terminators, centurions, or primaris. But he is still a solid option and my favorite character.

    • Reecius June 28, 2017 6:05 am #

      Yeah, I totally missed the NOT part of his rule, doh!

      • Gallenphillips July 19, 2017 10:16 am #

        Rules question concerning Lias: During deployment, does Lias and the three units that join him count as 1 unit for deployment or four?

  20. xthexclincherx June 26, 2017 12:35 pm #

    Do Inquisition Daemon Host units purposefully NOT have an keyword? Seems that it says everything in there must have an Order, but seems they don’t… thoughts on that?

Leave a Reply