Signals from the Frontline #547: BAO Format Poll is in!

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

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 a discount! Hit us up for your next gaming order at or visit our webstore at
  • You think Reecius’ T-Shirts are cool? Buy yours, here!


  • We’ve got the poll results in from BAO attendees. Again, this is ONLY for the BAO. We will shape the ITC format a little further down the road with more experience. Also, the BAO will be live-cast on our Twitch Channel! Make sure to

  • So it was a lot closer than I anticipated but I would imagine that that is because we are so early in to the edition. However, the BAO community did vote to go with more traditional tournament style missions with both end of game and progressive objectives.

  • This was the most contentious question this time around as expected. Whenever you talk about not allowing certain models, folks get passionate about it which is understandable. However, by a 2:1 ratio the BAO community decided they did not want to use the very big toys this time around. However, on a personal note this to me indicates that there are more folks that do want to use the big boys than I expected. A great solution in my mind is to offer “Gladiator” style format events wherein folks can use all of their big toys. For larger events like the LVO, this is a great alternative format or a Sunday event.

  • GW had announced that the Space Marines codex is coming out later in July which would put it very close to the BAO. They also announced 10 Dexes this year, so there is a possibility of another one out before the BAO, so we asked if folks were ready for that. The answer was no. That makes sense to me as everything is so new, but this also puts another nail in the coffin of the argument that anything that helps marines always wins the vote as that simply is not true. Case in point.

  • Tonight’s game features the Salty Banana, himself with his Grey Knights vs. Pascal the Painter’s very awesome Chaos army! Tune in at 5pm to our Twitch Channel to join in on the fun!

  • This week’s GW pre-order features some awesome Priamris Marines and Nurgle units plus several start playing box sets! You can grab yours at a discount in the FLG web-store at a discount and with free shipping on orders over $99 in the continental USA.

  • Our friends at CK studios have an airbrushing class you may want to check out up in Toronto at the end of this month! They are very skilled pros, will be a good class.

Upcoming ITC Events

Completed Commissions



About Reecius

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

66 Responses to “Signals from the Frontline #547: BAO Format Poll is in!”

  1. Blight July 10, 2017 10:07 am #

    Hoping Reece sees this. Are keywords always in bold and capitalized?
    Does Longstrike’s buff to hit effect him too? When it says hammerhead gunships is it referring to the keyword HAMMERHEAD GUNSHIP or the datasheet name for the regular unit? Suppose same with old one eye.

    • Reecius July 10, 2017 10:53 am #

      They are in range of their own auras and you can look those up in the FAQ, IIRC.

      • Blight July 10, 2017 11:01 am #

        They actually didn’t cover this one in the FAQ. They took out the reference to other hammerhead gunships but left the plural non-bolded and non-capitalized wording. No question that he is in range of his own aura just if he counts as one of the hammerhead gunships that it buffs.
        Really I’ll just go with how you guys played it during testing.

        • Reecius July 10, 2017 11:03 am #

          Yeah, he buffs himself and other Hammerheads.

    • Threllen July 10, 2017 11:01 am #

      Just my interpretation… but I’m guessing it was done intentionally to mean units named “TX7 Hammerhead Gunships” and it’s not supposed to go off the keyword so it would not affect Longstrike.

      Partially because 1) Longstrike with full wounds already hits on 2+ so the +1 To Hit roll wouldn’t make sense since he’s already got a buffed BS characteristic and 2) it says “other” hammerheads which would signify it is not supposed to include him.

      Old One Eye is a bit less clear because it doesn’t include the word “other” but at the same time keywords are generally in bold and his rule isn’t bolded…

      • Reecius July 10, 2017 11:04 am #

        The +1 to hit does help as then anything that has a -1 to hit gets cancelled out.

        And while I cannot say with certainty at this time, I am 99% certain that the intent is to have him buff himself and other Hammerheads like other similar characters.

        • Threllen July 10, 2017 11:22 am #

          But in Longstrike’s specific case, his rule specifies *other* nearby hammerheads. It doesn’t say “himself and others.” Additionally, the words XT7 Hammerhead Gunship aren’t bolded like keywords normally are which leads me to believe it’s calling something by it’s name and not calling it by its keyword…

          • Threllen July 10, 2017 11:22 am

            NEvermind, I forgot the FAQ took out “other.”

            Still not sure why it isn’t bolded, though…

        • Mirny July 11, 2017 11:14 am #

          The question is when did a rule buff a keyword. There are many HQs where the “buff target” is not bold and CAPS. I can’t believe those rules still buff a keyword!? Some example: Ork Kaptin Badrukk, Tyranid Old One Eye or the already mentioned Tau Longstrike. In my opinion they just buff a unit name and therefor don’t buff themself. There are to many examples in the indices, it couldn’t be just a typo.
          There must be a difference between a normal written unit name and a bold and CAPS one. And just for RAI: the AoS FAQ explaind it’s only a keyword if it’s bold.

  2. Danden July 10, 2017 11:08 am #

    ETA on updating ITC format with new missions?

  3. jifel July 10, 2017 12:00 pm #

    Here’s a question that’s been puzzling our local gamers. If a non-infantry unit is in cover, does it have to be 50% obscured by the terrain to receive cover, or could it be obscured by a separate terrain piece or by a different model and receive the +1?

    • Reecius July 10, 2017 12:03 pm #

      You have to be in or on terrain. Then, you have to be 50% obscured from the perspective of the firing unit to get cover for a vehicle.

      • ChosenOfKhorne July 10, 2017 1:46 pm #

        Do you count as being in cover if you are infantry standing on an ITC crate?

        • Reecius July 10, 2017 1:55 pm #

          No, we do not treat them as ruins.

    • Threllen July 10, 2017 12:16 pm #

      The FAQs make everything about cover a lot more clear. There it specifies that you need to be 50% obscured AND you have to be on the terrain as well.

      They also clean up some other silliness like the fact that the original barricade rules gave you a cover save by being within 1″ even if the shooter was on the same side of the barricade (AKA it wasn’t shielding you at all). Now they specified you have to actually be behind the barricade as well.

  4. Yonas July 10, 2017 4:15 pm #

    Random question – which forums do you guys like fir 40k discussion? When I last played back in 5th edition, Dakka was my go-to, but it seems like it’s mostly just full of people whining these days which gets tiring real fast.

    • Reecius July 10, 2017 7:52 pm #

      lol, yeah, Dakka has changed a LOT from 5th ed. This is a good place, so is Facebook.

      • Dakkath July 11, 2017 12:19 am #

        I wish you guys would bring your forums back. Comment sections are alright, but the forums were a nice way to keep things organized.

    • Duz_ July 11, 2017 3:38 am #

      Bolter & Chainsword go to a fair bit of effort to keep topics constructive.
      They also allow Xenos discussions since 8th dropped.

  5. Quinn July 10, 2017 7:26 pm #

    I’m all in favor of some type of force org limitations. I don’t want anything like a mandatory Battalion..but some type of limit on Flyers, or HQs or LoWs is fine with me. I think GW is still a bit naive at the crazy lists that can be built for competitive play. I hate telling people what they can or cannot use, but some of this is ridiculous.

    • Reecius July 10, 2017 7:52 pm #

      I agree and you pretty much nailed it. Flyers, LoW and HQ spam are the ones I’d like to see reigned in, too.

      • Yonas July 11, 2017 9:05 am #

        The challenge is, if you restrict knights then people who previously played that army are going to be unhappy, but if you make them an exception then restricting super-heavies is completely pointless and counter-productive.

        Personally I’d like to only see army composition restrictions where something is too good for a TAC list to reasonably prepare for, which I’m not convinced is the case for HQ spam. In my opinion, the best solution is to restrict both LoW and Flyers to a maximum of 750 points each. That allows doubling up on certain inexpensive lords of war and fitting 3-4 planes without allowing either to be spammed to the point of being impossible to deal with.

        If you guys went with that system, I don’t think a ‘max 31PL’ rule is necessary in addition, but you could always have an individualised banlist if certain models in the allowable point range turn out to be unreasonably good.

  6. mike July 10, 2017 9:48 pm #

    Came across a rules question:

    Aura buffs say they can’t affect “other units” while the guy is in a transport.

    So if I have a captain in a fortification firing out alongside a unit, he only rerolls his own 1’s correct?
    Also can a devastator sergeant use his signum on his squad-mate while they’re in a fortification firing out?

  7. Duz_ July 11, 2017 3:36 am #

    If the Power Level restriction goes to an ITC vote later on would there be an option to provide an alternative PL? Eg 32 and above (I am assuming by 31+ you mean 31 inclusive. Yes I really would like to use my Hellhammer this edition seeing as Baneblades are somewhat viable now. 😉 )

    • Adam (RUMBL) July 11, 2017 6:12 am #

      I think the better solution is a curated list like previously. Capping st an arbitrary PL rating has the funny effect of banning units that are overpriced, but allowing ones that are undercost! So while your hellhammer is banned, the Gauss Pylon which can one-shot most other super heavies is totally fine under this method.

      • Threllen July 11, 2017 6:58 am #

        Honestly, I think it’s mostly just the fact that Forgeworld has generally been horrendous at balancing those high cost units. They run the gamut from supremely under-costed, to fairly-costed, to supremely over-costed.

        At the same time, a curated list can be just as arbitrary especially because part of the list last edition came from saying “if a vehicle has a weapon that fits x characteristics (like this big of a pie plate) then it’s banned.” But now that weapons are much more unique it’s a lot harder to fall back on that. And, while it’s not a perfect system, it’s a lot easier to say “units over X power are banned” than it is to individually go through every single high cost unit and have a small group of people decide if they think it’s fair or not.

        • Adam (RUMBL & TheDiceAbide) July 11, 2017 8:50 am #

          I totally agree that the point values are somewhat arbitrary, my point was to show that just saying over PL30 isn’t necessarily a good indicator that you’re cutting out the OP ones, you’re just cutting out the big ones, and the over-priced ones, and keeping the most under-cost ones.

          I think that given the short time-frame that Reece and the FLG guys had to work with, that the >30 PL restriction is fine, I just think that the better long-term solution is to go through the LoW options like they did before. Or even better, just come up with a ban-list where they can pick out the biggest offenders and true titans (nobody will be surprised when the Ta’unar, Warhound, Revenant, Heirophant, etc., show up on that list).

  8. Threllen July 11, 2017 7:01 am #

    Hey Reece, is there a BAO and/or ITC stance on understrength units? As it stands with the FAQ, I can fill out compulsory troops slots using 2 pts of brims. Some armies such as Guard could fill out an entire brigade detachment for insanely cheap using one-model units. Obviously limiting the number of detachments does help a little bit, but still I could go from an army that would normally only fit in a battalion to one that fills out a brigade by adding just a couple hundred points of understrength units.

    • Blight July 11, 2017 7:19 am #

      Now they do have to be different types of units and part of the rules are that you have to not own the models to make them full strength.
      Are you spamming brims or using multiple troop choices?

      • Threllen July 11, 2017 8:18 am #

        Well I can use one brim, one blue, and one pink to fill 3 compulsory slots for a total of 17 points. Technically yes, it is supposed to be because you “don’t own” enough models to field a real unit but how does anyone at a tournament know what models I actually own?

        • Reecius July 11, 2017 8:40 am #

          Only in the Auxiliary Support Detachment.

          • Threllen July 11, 2017 8:48 am

            That makes sense. That limits pretty much all the potential for someone trying to game slots by claiming they need to use an understrength unit.

  9. Troy Graber July 11, 2017 7:27 am #

    On the topic of restricting Army Comp, my suggestion would be to get rid of the 3 detachments that are obviously out of whack.

    Super Heavy Detachment, Air wing Detachment, and Supreme Command Detachment.

    It seems like those 3 were always destined to be problematic (possibly fortification network, too but i haven’t seen it on the table enough yet to make a call). It seems like they’d work much better with a set of optional rules that suite them. For instance Flying Wing belongs in DFtS.

    • Troy Graber July 11, 2017 7:43 am #

      We definitely plan to try this out locally in an RTT or two after Flying Monkey GT

    • Threllen July 11, 2017 8:23 am #

      I’m not so sure “obviously out of whack” is as objective a measure as you seem to think it is.

      You’ve always been able to take 100% Imperial Knight armies ever since they came out. The whole point of these wide-ranging detachments was so players could take the same models now that they took using old formations/detachments in 7th. Are we suddenly saying that some people don’t like Imperial Knights so therefore no one should be able to play them? (Unless of course you still allow the super-heavy auxiliary detachment in which case the ban is a moot point anyway).

      Same with the Supreme Command detachment or the flyer wing. Many of those were formations in the old edition and people bought the models thinking they would be able to fit them into their army. Thinking of daemons, specifically, in 7th edition I was allowed to take 4 heralds as 1 HQ slot. If I wanted to do that now, the best way to replicate that would be using the Supreme Command detachment. Same with any other army like Space Wolves that have always liked bringing multiple HQs to the fray. You ban that detachment you ban those armies from a playstyle that has always been available to them. What’s so obviously out of whack about that?

      • Adam (RUMBL & TheDiceAbide) July 11, 2017 9:00 am #

        Agreed Threllen, outright banning the Super Heavy Detachment means I no longer have a 40k army that I can play in ITC. There are better solutions out there for sure.

        • Threllen July 11, 2017 9:14 am #

          I can see the flyer wing argument because flyers have always been kind of problematic. Even with the new 8th edition where “everything can hurt everything” flyers are still immune to a lot of the game and, even when they aren’t OP, they lead to a lot of games that can be very uninteractive which is never fun.

          But I really don’t think Supreme Command or Lord of War detachments should be on the chopping block. There are plenty of legitimate armies that can use those detachments or, in some cases, need to use them…

          • Troy Graber July 11, 2017 10:38 am

            Sure, plenty of legitimate armies can use those detachments. All of them. We are doing an escalation league (as you do with a new edition drops). Right now I’m using the Supreme Command detachment to allow me to run an inquisition themed army for that escalation league. It isn’t so I can win. I designed it primarily with fluff in mind (and because I had a bunch of unpainted inquisitors)

            That doesn’t mean I feel entitled to be able to run exactly that army at every organized play event, and it also doesn’t mean that I’m so committed to it that I want to see the Meta f’d up for everyone else by the people who would exploit an army Comp loophole to give themselves a personal advantage over the field, or more problematic to give them easy wins against people who build more thematic armies.

            Games decided by tactics on the table once dice are rolled have always been, and will always be more fun than games decided at the list building stage. Furthermore, restrictions are what make list building fun. At least for me.

      • Troy Graber July 11, 2017 10:25 am #

        I’ve got 4 looted wagons, and 3 gunwagons. Those units no longer exist. I’ve got a Stompa that based on the poll is probably not going to make the cut into most 8th edition Organized Play. My Demon Summoning Ork list is completely impossible, as is my Orkified Khorne knight. I’ve got 2 Venomthropes aka a non-field-able number. A friend of mine ran a list that was basically A stompa and weirdboyz that summoned demons.

        My point isn’t that I’m more victimized than the Knight player. My point is just that sometimes we’ve got to accept that armies we enjoyed running have changed, or are now only available in casual play.

        Knights as an army was always a gimmick to attempt to force the player base to accept playing all-apoc-all-the-time. I think it is like Reece said in the podcast about “Don’t go all in on an exploitable rule like spamming razorwing flocks, because it likely isn’t going to be around forever”.

        If the super heavy detachment went away for selective organized play events, you’d still be able to run knights. You just wouldn’t be able to run quite as many at some events in exactly the same way that Eldar Players went through when the Wraithknight became a Lord of War.

        • Threllen July 11, 2017 11:37 am #

          First off, it’s one thing when GW alters rules. That happens with every new book that is dropped. But I believe that’s a different thing than the restrictions the community places on top of those rules. To me, I’d much rather be very cautious in restricting what toys can be used unless we know most of the community welcomes those restrictions.

          I guess I’m not really on the same page that most of what you listed actually needs to be nerfed. You were allowed to take basically unlimited super-heavies in 7th (AKA knight armies) and guess what: they weren’t that great. This edition they are plenty beatable as well as long as the person playing against them is skilled and the missions aren’t totally favorable to them. As Reece mentioned in the podcast, don’t let them auto-go-first and institute progressive missions and all of a sudden that army gets a lot worse.

          Same thing with the “Supreme Command detachment.” Is it good? Sure. But I guess I have yet to see an army where I go “oh my god this is so unbelievably broken and unfun to play against and it’s all because they can take this stupid Supreme Command detachment!” If you have some examples of an army like that I’d love to see them. Maybe there’s something I’m missing. You can still get a good chunk of HQ units by just taking the more standard detachments and including some cheap obligatory troops choices (which most of those types of armies will anyway for objective control).

          Even with the flyer wing you can still take a LOT of flyers in non-flyer wing detachments. And, in my opinion, it’s not the flyer wing itself that is the entire problem even though I admit I’m not a huge fan of playing against all flyers. There are lots of armies that could take all flyers and the opponent would be plenty fine playing against them. Really, the elephant in the room is storm ravens. They’re what makes flyer wings look the most absurd. Balance their point cost and a lot less people will complain about flyers.

          I guess I just really don’t believe in abritrarily taking away an entire core way of playing the game just because one or two units might abuse it. I’d rather go after those units.

          • Troy Graber July 12, 2017 7:17 am

            There is a reasonable chance that a majority feel as you do. In fact based on previous polling results, and the “Scatbikes are a thing, so F** it attitude” that was dominant through 7th ed, I wouldn’t be surprised if there is a likewise “Magnus is a thing so F** it attitude” in 8th.

            I think an important distinction is that I don’t feel like we should “arbitrarily” take anything away. I feel like there is a clearly define process that starts with reasoned discussion, and is followed by a vote. That is what I’d like to see.

            7th ed was frustrating to me, because I felt like the ITC never really took meaningful votes on a number of extremely divisive things like Formations, Battle Brothers, Wraithknights, or Super Heavies in general. I ran those polls at my events, and the results were very one-sided in favor of a more restrictive army comp. When I ran the same questions at my GT people were much more divided. For all I know, every single one of those questions would have ended up reinforcing the status Quo. But we will never truly know because they were never asked.

            For all I know, a majority of people would side with you. But we’ll never know unless the question is asked. I don’t want a decision. Just a poll.

    • Reecius July 11, 2017 8:41 am #

      Troy, I tend to agree. I also think all flyer armies don’t really fit in normal matched play as they are non-interactive with melee armies.

  10. Skallagoose July 11, 2017 8:53 am #

    Quick question;
    The restriction for BAO limiting power level to 31 per unit isn’t yet extended to the whole ITC ruleset. My question is when/if you extend this to the entire community will you restrict the units on a case-by-case basis (like 7th edition) or on a flat scale (as per BAO).

    I understand the restriction, but i own and painted a fellblade; in 7th it was horribly inefficient. In 8th, the few games i have played it has been efficient for its points, but in 2/3 games it died by the end of the game, so while i hear groans when i take it out, by the end of the game most people realize its not particularly overpowered.

    I understand the restriction, and i embrace a ruleset, i just want to know how you are looking at implementing the restriction.

  11. Cephalobeard July 11, 2017 9:52 am #

    The implication in the future that I may not be able to use the larger forgeworld models is kind of annoying. Suddenly adding that rule that they, potentially, are only allowed in apocalypse would probably make a few people angry.

    **Not speaking ITC wise, speaking GW retroactive placing the model into Apoc only.

    • Threllen July 11, 2017 10:04 am #

      GW got rid of the distinction of “apocalypse” games long ago and have given no indication they’re going back to it. I think what Reece was trying to say was that many people are of the belief stuff that costs that much should only be brought out in large games (AKA what many colloquially call “apocalypse”). Those models weren’t designed so you could take out a 2000pt titan and have a fun, balanced, competitive match wherein someone’s entire army can’t dent your single model as it walks all over everything.

      If you’re playing at your FLGS you can bring whatever models your opponents are willing to play against. Doesn’t mean they’re good for the health of a 2k point limit tournament meta.

      • Cephalobeard July 11, 2017 10:19 am #

        Sure. A “Format” as they also discussed is something that I, genuinely, feel would be good for Warhammer in general. Would create a variety of play styles for different armies, while allowing them all to be valid.

        My main concern was with the implication, which I certainly could have taken incorrectly, but as is the nature of his NDA he can’t really explain. Makes an implication hard to process.

        I am not afraid to admit I purchased an Aetaos from FW. I would be concerned if GW** produced a rule saying I cannot use it during my games, after I have done so. That was my main point.

        • Threllen July 11, 2017 11:26 am #

          I get that. And I know Reece probably can’t speak to what he meant but I was just saying that’s not how I interpreted his words. GW went through a lot of pains since 5th edition taking apocalypse piece-by-piece and integrating it into the basic game. To the point where our game now more closely resembles apoc than it does the old “Standard games.”

          I understand the concern but I really don’t think you have to worry about GW themselves coming out and saying “no using X, Y, and Z models unless the game is over a certain number of points.” That just really wouldn’t mesh with what they’ve been doing.

          • Cephalobeard July 11, 2017 11:36 am

            For sure. Time will tell. I’m mostly just thinking with my wallet.

  12. Luke July 11, 2017 10:04 am #

    I legit totally misread the poll and thought they were asking about models with more than 30 WOUNDS, not Power Levels.


    It would be sad not to be able to use a decent amount of baneblade-style chassis (hey Falchion), as well as the Skatach Wraithknight…and my main man An’ggrath…although he is pretty busted for lower points levels.

    • Luke July 11, 2017 10:07 am #

      In the entire ITC format, I mean. I’d also second a case-by-case basis like in 7th for ITC events (but only if my 3 models are allowed 😉 )

  13. Luke July 11, 2017 11:35 am #

    Don’t mean to toot my own horn, but I feel like some people might be interested in voting on whether or not units should be allowed on a unit-by-unit basis, so I set up a poll:

    Reece I can send you the responses after a while if you’d like some data on this

    • Drachnyen July 11, 2017 1:09 pm #

      Interesting poll… voting is based on what?

      Models that I own?
      Models that I like?
      Models I think are OP? (Unless I own one)
      Models I don’t like playing against?

      IMHO, Subjective polling like this ont produce any significant results I am afraid

      Instead I suggest voting for a system or a set of parameters that define a unit inclusion or exclusion.

      • Luke July 11, 2017 3:48 pm #

        It’s just an opinion poll. The problem with parameters is that some units might technically meet parameters for inclusion or exclusion, but still be very good (or very bad).

        For example, the one I came up with – 30 wounds or more is excluded – excludes the Harridan, truly the worst power level 31+ unit in the game. What is the reason to exclude such units at events? It’s either because:

        A) The unit is OP and is unhealthy for the game
        B) The unit provides an un-fun player experience for the enemy

        Or both. The harridan, with no invuln and not even the -1 to hit is about as durable as a bloodthirster vs heavy weapons and about 3x as many points. Plus his guns are truly lackluster. IMO, totally not worth excluding on any grounds except “TO wants a black and white line in the sand”. I can respect that, but I would also have no issue with anyone playing a Harridan in any event I run. To that person, I wish them the best of luck and good dice – they’ll need it to win their games with such a handicap.

      • Spaceork July 11, 2017 5:22 pm #

        the poll shows the results I think should be in place. True Titans are out, no one knows what the heck the buildings are, and everything else is ok.

  14. Duz_ July 11, 2017 1:37 pm #

    On another note…

    Will ITC consider using the ETC mission set of rule book EW + Maelstrom + usual suspect tertiaries?
    I always enjoyed that mission set

  15. Grimgold July 11, 2017 2:54 pm #

    I think some restriction on spamming units would benefit the competitive scene, maybe no more than 3 of a single non-troop unit,

    • Ujayim July 11, 2017 3:39 pm #

      That would gut armies like Daemons which are all low point cost units. Their whole point is using multiple unique models to serve specific purposes.

      • Grimgold July 11, 2017 7:33 pm #

        Maybe then just banning the most likely to be abused force orgs from tournaments? Specifically the ultimate command and flyer wings? That seems to solve a good chunk of the problems of spam, specifically flyer spam and commander spam, or at least make them more difficult to pull off.

        Also aren’t most of the units demons use in bulk troops?

    • WestRider July 11, 2017 6:54 pm #

      That sort of thing has always just ended up punishing Factions that have few good Units, or few Units at all (i.e. Sororitas, Tempestum, Harlequins), while leaving those with a wide variety of good Units just fine.

      • Grimgold July 11, 2017 7:38 pm #

        Isn’t the whole point of the new keyword ally structure so that those armies can pull forces in from other armies? It’s not like the examples you gave were necrons or tau who have no allies. Instead they were SoB, Tempestus, and harlequins who all have readily available allies, and frankly are rarely fielded without allies currently to fill the gaping holes in their lists.

        • Threllen July 12, 2017 5:50 am #

          There’s a difference between having the OPTION to ally and being FORCED to ally. Especially once codexes come out and you get bonuses for choosing one specific force.

          “No more than 3 of the same non-troop” is incredibly arbitrary and punishing for armies with low point-cost units. Under this guise an army with 3 Knights is completely OK (not even considering the fact the Imperium technically has multiple Knight profiles so they wouldn’t even count as the same while renegade knights use a single profile). On the other hand if I try to include 4 units of flesh hounds suddenly that’s too OP and spammy and I can’t do that?

  16. Spaceork July 11, 2017 5:08 pm #

    Well setting the cap at 31 PL kinda sucks. No named GuO for me , nor Porphyion for a friend. Kinda hoped to try everything and just see where things fell.

    • Luke July 12, 2017 3:59 pm #

      Scabby is PL 30

  17. LordDrakonus July 11, 2017 7:30 pm #

    Please please don’t do anything crazy, yes all fliers is strong but it’s 100% beatable, it may suck if you have a pure assault army but who’s fault is that? You decided to focus one 1 phase of the game…….

    • Threllen July 12, 2017 5:51 am #

      The all-flyer army decided to focus entirely on one part of the game, too. Only his phase of the game is one that gets to ignore half the other game.

      Try telling an Ork, ‘Nid, or Daemon player that they’re stupid for bringing an assault army…

Leave a Reply