Signals from the Frontline #665: Blood of Baal Discussion and Slaves to Darkness Inbound!

Let’s take a look at the new Blood of Baal Psychic Awakening release and preview those menacing new Slaves to Darkness minis!

Join us for the live show on our Twitch channel by following this link! The show starts at 11am, PST. The podcast and YouTube video-cast air at 9am, PST every Friday.

Show Notes

Date: 12-4-19


  • 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


  • Next week we’ve got the highly anticipated Slaves to Darkness coming and wow do these models look fantastic. Let’s look at some of the rules.

  • The LVO 2020 is just over 7 weeks away! We’re working on getting an update for you all in regards to expectations on army appearance, guideline updates, etc. as we prepare for the biggest LVO to date and the biggest 40k event in the world!
    • We have been saying we were going to allow Legends but after reviewing things more closely and discussion with TOs from around the world, GW, and looking at what could come of it we have decided to reverse course on that one. Sorry for any confusion but we will be sticking to the new guidelines for Legends not being allowed in matched play.
  • We’re going with the Battle Ready Paint Standard GW published a while back as an example of what we expect for the LVO. The middle picture is an example of what we are expecting for the 3 color minimum and based paint standard (although we are aware that that model has more than 3 colors). It’s not a primer spray and 2 dots of paint, it’s not a primer spray and a stripe painted on everyone’s head, etc. It’s an attempt to actually paint the model with at least 3 distinct colors and based. Also, we’re requiring that armies have a coherent appearance.
    • What that means specifically is that you cannot have a detachment of say, Iron Hands, where you borrowed 6 red Centurions from one buddy, 6 blue Centurions from another, and 6 green Centurions from a third and you’re trying to play them all as Iron Hands. That won’t be allowed.
    • You can have an army that is meant to be Iron Hands that is painted Red (or whatever non standard color scheme) and play them as Iron hands so long as you are consistent: all of the Marines in the army that are meant to be Iron Hands are painted the same way.
    • Does this mean every model has to be painted the exact same? No. If your Librarians are Blue and your Chaplains are Black, etc. that is fine. Common sense should be your guide, here. When in doubt, send in pictures to be approved.
    • Lastly we are requiring that models be played on the base size their most current models come with. So, if your models are now being sold on 32mm bases (or whatever) then they must be on 32mm bases. Before anyone freaks out, there are a lot of options for affordable base extenders out there on the market so you can easily get this accomplished without having to rebase 200 Ork Boyz or what have you. We will also work on a base size chart to address some of the edge cases and clarify things.
    • And not that it’s fun, but we will pull models from the table in the middle of a game if you fail to meet the minimum requirements.
  • We’re also clarifying and tightening up the Chess Clock and mission wording to address some of the issues we’ve seen pop up since SoCal Open.
  • More to come!
  • Blood of Baal, the latest Psychic Awakening book, and Chapter Approved 2019 are coming out and bringing with it some changes to the meta. Let’s take a look at some of it:
    • Overall, CA brings an injection of new life to many units in the game. Some units got points increases that reflect the state of the game when the book was written.
    • Tyranids particularly got a lot to be happy about.
      • Points adjustments in CA
      • Great new Relics in BoB such as the Resonance Barb, Arachnacyte Gland and Xenogneic Acid.
      • The custom Hive Fleet Adaptations allow you to do some fun stuff as well, and make some things like little bugs very potent. 6++ Hormagants with AP-1 melee weapons are significantly boosted over their codex standard versions.
      • Allowing every model in your army to heal a wound a turn is nice for a detachment with multi-wound models.
      • Adaptive Physiology are also awesome buffs and allow for some powerful combos.
      • And of course, some fantastic strats.

Upcoming ITC Events

Upcoming 40k ITC Events

Upcoming AoS ITC Events

40k ITC Top 10

Click here for full rankings.

RankFirst NameLast NamePointsEvents
1JimVesal1192.735 of 5
2RichardSiegler1179.825 of 5
3NicholasRose11545 of 5
4NickNanavati1124.365 of 5
5JohnLennon1118.795 of 5
6ManiCheema1117.135 of 5
7TjLanigan1101.85 of 5
8ChrisBlackham1097.655 of 5
9BrianPullen1078.725 of 5
10NickSutherland1063.445 of 5

40k ITC Hobby Track Top 10

Click here for full rankings.

RankFirst NameLast NamePointsEvents
1JimVesal1117.545 of 5
2LouRollins987.75 of 5
3PaulWinters953.025 of 5
4DominiqueCarette951.415 of 5
5TjLanigan941.795 of 5
6MatthewBodnarchuk906.715 of 5
7ThomasByrd8875 of 5
8JasonByrd868.415 of 5
9AlexisPutt866.075 of 5
10ColinSherman844.15 of 5

AoS ITC Top 10

Click here for full rankings.

RankFirst NameLast NamePointsEvents
1JeremyVeysseire962.665 of 5
2JamesO’Brien915.545 of 5
3AlexanderGonzalez913.135 of 5
4AnthonyLawrence880.415 of 5
5MatthewPashby868.145 of 5
6ChrisBergman848.935 of 5
7ChaiTzola831.295 of 5
8MattObringer830.925 of 5
9JoeKrier823.765 of 5
10RahulPereira810.065 of 5

AoS ITC Hobby Track Top 10

Click here for full rankings.

RankFirst NameLast NamePointsEvents
1RichWaters332.642 of 5
2JeremyVeysseire316.834 of 5
3MattBeasley308.872 of 5
4AlexanderGonzalez293.673 of 5
5MatthiasKrushel276.993 of 5
6HaroldBlack263.052 of 5
7JordanDuncan258.292 of 5
8DerekPage253.262 of 5
9RahulPereira250.712 of 5
10MichaelBurch242.673 of 5

Shadespire ITC Top 10

Click here for full rankings.

RankFirst NameLast NamePointsEvents
1IvanCho609.414 of 5
2JonathanKolson476.73 of 5
3TonyField470.493 of 5
4MatthewMartine470.13 of 5
5DanielVelazquez450.293 of 5
6PhilipSanta Maria445.693 of 5
7KeithWenck437.244 of 5
8CoreySullivan436.653 of 5
9ScottDriessen422.243 of 5
10RobertSchuchardt416.213 of 5

Kill Team ITC Top 10

Click here for full rankings.

RankFirst NameLast NamePointsEvents
1Michael THoly701.154 of 5
2AlexTorbert613.884 of 5
3JanisGilham587.934 of 5
4GeorgeRollins562.834 of 5
5MatthewHoell486.54 of 5
6RionWilfong462.363 of 5
7FrankDalykas453.183 of 5
8AlecBerryman433.384 of 5
9LukeScianna424.313 of 5
10JonSao423.633 of 5

Completed Commissions

  • This 30k Magnus was painted by our FLG Paint Studio! Consider us for your next miniatures painting commission.

And remember, Frontline Gaming sells gaming products at a discount, every day in their webcart!



About Reecius

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

77 Responses to “Signals from the Frontline #665: Blood of Baal Discussion and Slaves to Darkness Inbound!”

  1. Avatar
    Anggul December 4, 2019 10:51 am #

    Can I ask what the reasoning for going along with ‘Legends’ is?

    Why are we just letting GW dictate that we can’t use those models any more?

    • Avatar
      JVail December 4, 2019 11:55 am #

      Maybe it is because GW makes the points, playtests them, knows future releases and rules, and plans around them? They DO make the game after all…. some of these are just bad anyways and some were completely underpointed for what they did (big mek). You want to play with your toys, play a narrative mission.

      • Avatar
        Lysander December 4, 2019 12:42 pm #

        Do they playtest though? Little evidence of that lately with Iron Hands / Salamanders / etc.

      • Avatar
        Anggul December 5, 2019 4:59 am #

        Let’s not pretend GW plans things properly or is good at organising points etc., we know they aren’t. You could point cost things about as successfully as them by throwing darts at a board.

        Lots of us have models that we bought from them for our units, like my Autarch with banshee mask. I don’t see why we should just roll over and accept them being ‘taken away’.

    • Avatar
      Colin Coons December 4, 2019 12:38 pm #

      I would also like to know how Legends is being handled at future tournaments, at least where Frontline is concerned. Not everyone agrees with your opinion JVail.

      • Reecius
        Reecius December 4, 2019 1:30 pm #

        Every TO is free to make the call that best reflects what their attendees want. We will not be allowing Legends units at our matched play events any longer.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2019 1:32 pm #

      We’re going along with it for balance sake and because the overwhelming response among the community of TO’s was to stick to GW’s policy on it.

      • Avatar
        Anggul December 5, 2019 5:02 am #

        I understand somewhat wanting to go along with GW to keep them happy, but what other reasoning was there?

        I’m not sure what options would mess with balance so much. Being able to give an Autarch useful gear or an Archon a blaster doesn’t seem game-breaking. Has someone been ruining games with rough riders and honour guard?

        I just think people would be a lot more willing to accept the decision if reasoning was given, because it’s a pretty big thing.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 5, 2019 9:13 am #

          It is the policy going forward as to how to play 40k. It’s the rules as given to us by GW. That’s not justification enough for you?

          • Avatar
            Anggul December 6, 2019 4:48 pm

            I don’t mean to sound pointlessly argumentative when I say: No

            I don’t see why GW gets to tell everyone they can’t use their models when the rules are still there for them. So I’m curious why legends is being taken seriously.

            This isn’t an attack on you guys, I love the work you do and support the majority of your decisions, it’s more a question of why the majority of TOs have decided to agree with GW’s decision on this particular thing which just seems to be a pure negative for the players.

  2. Avatar
    Jason December 4, 2019 12:43 pm #

    Seems like the justification is that they are not going to be updated but they are updated points and rules wise with the latest push. I mean they have rules that are new and in line as of DEC. The headache personally is that I have to change 50% of what I intended to bring based on models not being updated in the future that are updated today.😥

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2019 1:32 pm #

      Yeah, and that stinks, I am sorry to hear that. Unfortunately, after seeing how it was implemented in full, it would cause a lot of issues to stick to using them.

  3. Avatar
    Zero-Charisma December 4, 2019 1:21 pm #

    Is LVO still allowing a fully painted but solid black painted base?

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2019 1:31 pm #

      Yes, so long as you are consistent. If all of your bases are painted black, it’s fine.

      • Avatar
        NeonKatt December 4, 2019 2:01 pm #

        Ok so if my nids were all painted grey as a base color that would be good too. Not that im attending but I do like to be prepared and getting the snow I want on my bases isn’t easy

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 5, 2019 9:15 am #

          Currently no, it is only black. Otherwise what you get is people spray all their guys red (or whatever) and then the base is red and they just leave it that way and that is not the intent of the rule.

          The intent of the rule is to have the models painted and based, with an effort having been made to make the bases look done.

  4. ChrisG
    Ahkris December 4, 2019 1:38 pm #

    “Lastly we are requiring that models be played on the base size their most current models come with”

    So marine scouts have to be on 25 and can not be on 32? What about older SM character kits that are still sold with 25mm bases? Im guessing 32 should be fine or is that no longer the case?

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2019 4:58 pm #

      Working on a base size chart to help with all of these questions. Off the cuff though? That is modeling for advantage (perhaps unintentionally so) because it allows the Scouts to cover more ground to screen out, etc. if you infiltrate them.

      We understand that most people don’t do this to model for advantage, but because they feel it looks cooler, but the end result often is an advantage in game play that causes a lot of unenjoyable play experiences.

      • Avatar
        Maraach December 7, 2019 6:42 am #

        The base size thing is a terrible idea. GW and even you guys have okayed 28 and 32 base sizes being used on other models. I also have all my doomsday arks based on big bases because the tiny base they come with is terrible and breaks.

        Glad I opted to pass on lvo this year. Looks like it will go in my list of don’t attend. Same with adepticon Being so anal about a minor base size is the dumbest thing I’ve seen in awhile.

        Very bad call on the bases. Time to just play local again it seems.

  5. Avatar
    Hank Bell December 4, 2019 1:50 pm #

    The changes to LVO are pretty disappointing.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2019 1:53 pm #

      How so?

      • Avatar
        Hank Bell December 4, 2019 2:02 pm #

        Just this morning I was listening to last weeks Signals (I’m behind; there’s lots of great podcasts), where you assured us that Legends would be used, and that that was the stance you guys have had for a while.

        Now, that’s been completely reversed, and the reasoning isn’t “best reflects what their attendees want”, but discussions with other TOs. That’s pretty disappointing.

        It also leaves us in darkness for now on some things; the Big Mek w/ KFF that’s in Chapter Approved, is that just the index datasheet? What about anything from the index that didn’t make it to Legends? We’re left knowing some of what is (suddenly) no longer allowed, but not everything. I’m confident GW has something planned, but because they leave us in the dark, we can’t be sure of much.

        The previous stance of “Legends will be playable for LVO” meant we knew we had a month and a half to learn and grow from these changes, and give GW time to give us the full picture.

        The painting requirements I’m actually all for, so I should have been more specific in my previous post.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 4, 2019 2:12 pm #

          Yeah, and I apologize for that. There’s lot of reasons why, some of which I actually can’t get into unfortunately, but yeah, almost all the TOs were advising against it and they reflect their local player bases, and upon seeing how Legends was implemented it actually causes a lot of issues.

          So it is annoying I agree, and I spoke out for it from a position of not having all the information I needed to make that call. I shouldn’t have said anything. Upon getting the whole picture later in the game, I realized saying that up till now was the wrong call. I’m sorry if that changes your plans.

          • Avatar
            HANK BELL December 4, 2019 2:15 pm

            It hasn’t changed my plans. I was building my list with Legends in mind, because I was afraid of this happening. Planning for the worst doesn’t mean I’m not disappointed it came to pass.

            That said, I’m sure you’re going to hear a lot of shit about this over the coming days/weeks, so I want to state that I am incredibly appreciative of the work you and your team do, Reece. You guys are the gold standard of independent community entities, and I’m still super excited for LVO and other FLG events next year. You’re a paragon. Don’t let anyone get you down.

            I appreciate the responses.

      • Avatar
        Bogradamus December 4, 2019 2:18 pm #

        The rule requiring coherent painting was written with good intentions but will cause a lot of issues.

        In the fluff, campaigns often pull armies together from different sources. It is not only possible but likely that a 3 detachments of Cadians have different colored armor because they were supplied from different forge world and at different times. Some of the soldiers might not have been Cadian originally but were adopted into a Cadian army and drilled with them. Their different colored armor might be a way of retaining a connection to their past.

        A group of Space Marines or Custodians might have different colored armor because they are veterans of some campaign and thus were honored.

        This also makes it a lot more difficult to have split regiment armies without a lot of pointless repainting or having even more models. Suppose I have 90 Guardsmen. If I painted them as 2 or 3 different distinct colors, in the past I could run them all as Cadian, but now they all have to be the same color, so if I decide that I’m going to run an armored battalion as Tallarn, now I need another 30 Guardsmen or I need to repaint a bunch of guys.

        There is also an issue of whether coherence applies across different detachments and faction. The rule/example specifically mentions a detachment of Iron Hands can’t have 3 different colored sets of Centurions. Does that mean you can have a red Iron Hands detachment and a blue Iron Hands detachment?

        And what about basing between different factions in the same army?

        Suppose I based my Adeptus Custodes as if they are patrolling the halls of the Imperial Palace on Terra, and since the Emperor was a classy guy, he had marble floors. My Guardsmen are based as if they are fighting on a desert world. Now I couldn’t play them together because they weren’t be coherent? Yeah, it would look a little weird, but so does for example having lava bases on a grass playing mat.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 4, 2019 2:33 pm #

          As we said on the show, if you have a theme you are going for that violates the rule, or just in doubt, send in a picture of your army. And as we stated, use common sense.

          The idea is to prevent the slipping standards and “borrowhammer” where someone’s army is a hodgepodge mess of different units from different people’s armies. While hard to clearly define the difference between a themed army that is an honest attempt at doing something creative and someone just cobbling together a bunch of units from friends to make an army, we almost always know the difference when we see it.

          • Avatar
            Bogradamus December 4, 2019 3:01 pm

            “Borrowhammer” literally exemplifies how the Imperium’s armies operate. When an Orc Waaagh! pops up, they can and do throw together a hodgepodge mess of different detachments from different armies to combat it.
            An army reflecting that is a legitimate and flavorful theme.

            Some of us also have feelings regarding units that results in an eclectic collection in terms of painting and basing. You’re combating a problem that doesn’t exist and forcing a specific aesthetic standard for no good reason.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 4, 2019 3:21 pm

            Like I said, when in doubt, send in pics. If there’s a clear effort to go for a theme, it’s probably fine. If you’re slapping a bunch of randomly painted units into an army that is going to be confusing for your opponent while playing the game and using the excuse that it’s a “theme” are two very different things. One is cool and creative, the other is not and in fact is often unfair to the other player.

            And if you don’t see the benefit of it, lol, I don’t what to tell you. As a TO I have seen a lot of very poor looking armies and it degrades the experience of the event for everyone. Avoiding that is a good reason. Also, as stated, avoiding armies that are confusing for the opponent to track what is what is also a very good reason to combat it.

          • Avatar
            Bogradamus December 4, 2019 4:21 pm

            Take a step back and read what you’re writing.

            You are functionally saying anyone who doesn’t hobby according to your aesthetic preferences is doing it wrong.

            While someone could say that tightening up the minimum standard of painting in regards to 3 different colors is doing the same, that’s not what I’m saying. If someone painted a single painting using a combination of cubism, impressionism, and hyper realism, it might look like a complete mess, but they’ve probably put effort into it and that’s to be respected.

            The desire to prevent confusion is an admirable one, but the example in this article about painting coherency literally contradicts that. If someone brings red, blue, and green centurions and plays them all as Iron Hands, there is no confusion because they are all Iron Hands. If that player also brings some blue Ultramarines, then THAT is the problem.

            This is the rules equivalent of using cyclonic torpedoes to enact an exterminatus rather than sending in a strike team to purge a Genestealer uprising.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 4, 2019 4:46 pm

            You’re getting lost in the weeds on this one I think. This isn’t about my hobby standard, this is about establishing a baseline for what is acceptable at a matched play event in regards to hobby effort.

            Again, their is latitude to account for the rule of cool. If you listen to the cast, we go into that quite a bit. It’s not about draconian enforcement of RAI, it’s about elevating the hobby standard and making the overall experience better for everyone.

            If someone did an army themed after different painting styles it would be obvious what they were doing and super cool. But, that’s not what we’re after (as stated in the cast clearly), we’re looking to stop the mish-mash random, and very ugly armies (that are 99% likely to not have been painted by the player using it in the first place, which negates most of what you’re driving at) you see frequently in competitive 40k, particularly, and unfortunately, among some of the better players as they chase the meta. I get why they do it, it’s very hard to keep up with the pace, but it’s still a detriment to the overall experience of the average attendee.

  6. Avatar
    Stephen December 4, 2019 2:20 pm #

    Disappointing. I get holding Legends datasheets out, but Legend wargear options shouldn’t be excluded. As an Asuryani player, I’m absolutely discouraged from attending ITC or official GW tournaments going forward if that’s the case, we have no way of reliably replacing a Skyrunner with BMask and Fusion Gun/Laser Lance – even worse if we ran them as Ynnari as we’re excluded from taking the trash tier WL trait that would at least let us deny overwatch.

    All in all a poor balance decision on GWs and ITCs part, imo.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2019 2:34 pm #

      Sorry you feel that way, but this is the future of the game. Love it or hate it, here we are.

      • Avatar
        abusepuppy December 5, 2019 1:13 am #

        Keep in mind, “love it or hate it this is the game” also resulted in the godawful mess that was 7th edition.

        • Avatar
          Zweischneid December 5, 2019 3:00 am #

          7th wasn’t so bad compared to 8th post-Marines 2.0, lol.

          Rules were more difficult to read with more dodgy ambiguity, but overall balance/diversity was actually quite a bit better, at least going by pre-2017 LVO, Adepticon, etc.. top 10s.

          The March 2017 Adepticon just before 8th dropped was, relative to the current meta, super-diverse.

          Dan Platt with Chaos No. 1
          Greg Sparks with Eldar Scat Bikes No. 2
          Mike Taylor with Marines and Sisters No. 3
          Tony Grippando with a Wraithknight and Riptides No. 4
          Zeke with a Ynnari List No. 5
          Sean Nayden with mostly Nids No. 6.

          Also Steven Pampreen running mono-GSC, Nick Brown running mono Daemons, etc..

          The game has indeed fallen far from that level of diversity in armies.

          • Avatar
            Ohlmann December 5, 2019 3:46 am

            While credible, it also steer off the initial point.

            Legends is a way to address the fact GW discontinued a lot of model. It’s way late for that, and the implementation can be contested, but the basic need remain : newer players probably should not feel that they have to track occasions on ebay or do conversions as a mandatory step for their armies.

            ITC following the lead of GW on that is a decision that make sense, and who have nothing to do with that unholy mess of a Marine codex.

            If anything, the only thing that can be counted against ITC is that they still allow Space Marines.

          • Avatar
            abusepuppy December 5, 2019 5:07 am

            Keep in mind those were the numbers _with changes implemented_, not playing the game RAW.

            7th with no changes was a horrible disaster.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 5, 2019 9:18 am

            Lol, you can’t take one event’s top 10 and compare it to the current game wide meta in 8th (without posting any data to support your point) and the making a call on the state of the game.

            Come on, that’s silly.

  7. Avatar
    Ryan Collins December 4, 2019 2:20 pm #

    Hi there!

    Can I ask a clarifying question? Pedro Kantor currently ships with a 25mm base (never repackaged from ye olden days of Finecast) but all other Space Marine characters are now on 32mms. Should he be on a 25mm or a 32mm? It seems like 32mm is the correct answer to match the rest of the army, but just wanted to clarify because he still comes with an old base.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2019 2:42 pm #

      We’ll likely get a base size chart put together here to help address some of these issues.

  8. Avatar
    Ryan December 4, 2019 3:10 pm #

    What about the bases for howling banshees? The new ones are 28mm rather than the old 25mm but gw doesn’t sell 28mm bases yet for me to rebase them with. Will an exception be made for this unit until GW actually gives us bases to rebase with?

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2019 3:22 pm #

      Very good question, as noted above, we will work on a base size chart to help answer some of these inevitable questions.

  9. Avatar
    Brian December 4, 2019 4:27 pm #

    Can Reecius or anyone from FLG help explain some of the weirdness with Legends? The Land Raider Excelsior and the Rhino Primaris are my main example. These units are in CA2019 and even have DIFFERENT point costs in there than they do in Legends. The models are also still sold. Which do we defer to? The updated cost in Ca2019 (which isn’t even released yet) or are these actually retired?

    It seems incredibly odd that GW would print them in both and with different updated costs…

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2019 4:48 pm #

      Yeah, it’s a bit confusing right now. I’d wait for clarification.

  10. Avatar
    Rustyclaymore December 4, 2019 5:22 pm #

    I’m a little disappointed with this painting and basing ruling so close to LVO. My Sisters just came out with the 32 mm bases 4 days ago and now I need to rebase my whole army. Also 28mm are not a common base size for the repentia. I have been trying out three different paint schemes (4+ colors) but when ever I played in a tournament, I just went with one order so there would be no confusion. Not sure I can get new units to paint all one scheme by LVO, such as Pentient Engines and Exorcists. I really don’t want to repaint some of my existing models since I like their look in my collection. I do understand a desire for consistency, but so close to LVO ????

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 4, 2019 5:29 pm #

      Is two months really that close? I mean, that’s a long time. More time is always better but you can get an awful lot done in two months.

      Beyond that, we were also waiting for CA2019 which we just got.

      • Avatar
        rvd1ofakind December 4, 2019 10:16 pm #

        I rebased 120 oks in like 2 days(weekend). I think you can do the same for sisters easily.

      • Avatar
        abusepuppy December 5, 2019 1:14 am #

        Two months is not a lot of time to rebase and repaint an entire army, especially for people who have other obligations outside of the game such as children, work, etc.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 5, 2019 9:19 am #

          Why would you have to repaint anything? Unless someone intentionally painted their army with every unit being a different color for some bizarre reason no, no one will have to repaint anything.

          And rebasing is easy. I rebased my Free People’s army with hundreds of models, in a weekend.

          • Avatar
            abusepuppy December 5, 2019 10:23 am

            Multiple different people in this very thread have already complained that, by the new rules they would have to repaint their army unles they were given special exceptions.

          • Reecius
            Reecius December 5, 2019 10:45 am

            With no real evidence. Again, unless you intentionally painted an army with all your units being different colors and based differently (which is bizarre, and if it does happen it’s exceptionally rare) but as I said numerous times, if someone has a clear theme they’re going for, it should be evident and if it makes sense, the rule of cool kicks in.

            Perfect example, my buddy has an orc army where literally every model is unique. It’s obvious at a glance what’s going on, you can tell what is what, it’s a beautiful army and a big effort was put into it. That would get a pass despite not being uniform in appearance.

            I think people here are making that statement without having listened to the cast to understand what we’re communicating, or are just bellyaching without really having a basis for it.

            As always, when in doubt, send in pics.

          • Avatar
            abusepuppy December 7, 2019 7:31 pm

            And you can’t see any way in which people having to get their army specially-approved before every event might be inconvenient or a discouragement to folks?

            I’m not sure what kind of “evidence” you think people would present when saying “I don’t like this because my army doesn’t meet this standard.” This comment system doesn’t have a way to even attach images, so I guess they could… upload an image elsewhere and past the url here in order to satisfy your weird requirement for being allowed to complain about things?

            Maybe you guys will approve every single paint scheme that is submitted, I dunno. It hasn’t happened yet and I am pretty sure you are not going to collect any kind of data as to the rate of rejection on submissions or anything like that, so we realistically won’t ever really know. But from an outside viewpoint, this changes the onus to needing a nontrivial number of players such that they go from being default-accepted to needing convince a a group of strangers to accept their paint scheme. And you don’t seem to understand in the slightest why they might not be happy with that.

    • Avatar
      Brian Ellis December 4, 2019 10:07 pm #

      You’ve got plenty of time. Get painting!

      Agreed about 28mm bases though. The easy solution is not to bring Repentia because they still aren’t really competitive.

  11. Avatar
    Vaclav December 5, 2019 12:02 am #

    Hi Reece! Can you elaborate on the clock rules and other adjustments of the rules? We follow the ITC guidelines so I would love to learn about the changes. Cheers!

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 5, 2019 9:19 am #

      Just click on over to them, buddy.It’s already updated.

  12. Avatar
    vybert December 5, 2019 12:35 am #

    I’m glad to see the paint standard changes. Three color literally meant primer coat and two different color dots on some of the armies I’ve seen. One side benefit to this, if more large events adopt is, could also be a stabilizing of the meta. Using half assed paints that clearly abuse, but technically meet, the standard requirements and hodge podge armies throw together armies (not for thematic reasons) encourage people to bandwagon and jump on the latest hot thing that is out there.

    As a question, for those who can’t fully rebase or get supply after the inevitable run on click on base size adapters, is attatching the current base on top of an appropriate size base or disc an acceptable fix in the short term? Meets the footprint requirement with only minimal height adjustment

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 5, 2019 9:20 am #

      We’ll put up a chart of what is acceptable, buddy, to address some of the edge cases.

  13. Avatar
    Michael Hall December 5, 2019 12:54 am #

    Hi guys, as always I appreciate all the work you put in with the ITC and know there isn’t a way to please everybody all of the time but this seems a good way of giving feedback.

    Legends – disappointing that it is with immediate effect as they have just published updated rules and points, they are literally the most up to date rules for anything. Obviously everyone knows that this was going to happen sooner or later though.

    Painting – Great! Its always a little disheartening to line up against a complete hodgepodge of an army where you have to make notes on what everyhting is and isn’t.

    Bases – This one is a bit of an issue for me, there are no rules to back up any arguments here which means it comes down to opinions and common sense. Obviously people shouldn’t be allowed to base models on whatever size they like as you will get idiots coming with plague bearers on 60mm’s.
    The issue is with common sense stuff being disallowed with such a hard and fast ruling. For instance I have re-based all my old marine characters onto 32mm’s, these are no illegal despite being the obviously intended base size for marines going forward. Daemons especially are a bit of an issue as they keep on changing the base size supplied with models. Blood Crushers, fleshhounds, fiends, all have been supplied with multiple different base sizes in various boxes within the last couple of years.
    Speaking as a person that is still slowly converting a huge (mostly metal) daemon army from old squares over to rounds and ovals it is neither cheap or easy especially when the goal posts keep on changing.
    This is one rule that I really feel needs to be driven by common sense not just making a broad judgement, the only people it is punishing is those that really put effort into their hobby with custom bases and the like. As you say simple ring extenders can be added if you don’t really worry about how they look. Didn’t mean to rant but this ruling really annoys me 😉

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 5, 2019 9:21 am #

      We are making a base chart to address some of the issues you raise on that topic. Some units will have a range of sizes that works for them to accommodate exactly what you are describing.

  14. Avatar
    larks December 5, 2019 6:40 am #

    Hey Reece,

    I appreciate all the hard work you guys are doing and trying to make events that have a more defined idea of what to expect when you get there.

    I don’t know if a lot of the detractors here just haven’t played other competitive games or not but these rules really are not egregious . Magic is the obvious example with rotation making thing s completely unplayable in some formats and this happens far more often then GW ever had .

    As for the reasoning behind the painting, I get as well . Though I do have a guard army that indeed uses Tallarn, Cadian and Catachan battalions respectfully . These are all painted and based differently as intended by homeworld ( or lack there of *single tear for fallen Cadia*) but from your post this would be fine I take it? The different battalions are all uniform they just differ from each other. In that regard I still don’t know why people are grumpy over this , anyone that watches sports wont see a mix mash of different jerseys on the same team..

    GW makes 3 different formats for this reason all of the players that don’t like these changes don’t seem to grasp a competitive format exists to exemplify the HIGHEST standards of the game. IF you want the wild west, open play is there for that reason , literally.. DO whatever you want there…

    I guess my two cents ( besides the painting question above) if your a player that doesn’t understand these changes , please try another “competitive ” game. These are all fairly standard. IF these things don’t happen you get Warmachine syndrome lol

    • Avatar
      Ohlmann December 5, 2019 7:31 am #

      In Magic however they make a real effort to have at least one format where everything is playable. That out isn’t realistic for Warhammer (not enough hobbyist for several tournament formats in my opinion), but it do make things meaningfully different.

      The other problem is that minis are more of an investment than magic cards. Not in term of money of course, but in term of time spent on them.

      Did you really try other competitive games ? That doesn’t appear so given your remarks.

      • Avatar
        Larks December 5, 2019 8:22 am #

        Ohlmann- GW did make other formats.. open play and narrative as I mentioned previously. Most major tournaments have both competitive and narrative tournaments as well. so… its pretty realistic. How many Legends tournaments for MAgic have you seen where there is a turn out of players even close to a standard event? There is a reason besides the ( cost/rarity) of the cards… its to unwieldy.

        The time spent factor is all personal per player. If that is your referring to the new painting requirement? This is just for LVO as Reece stated many times, Each TO can choose to enforce the painting 3 color , its discretion based.

        So yes.. played plenty of other games.. including organized sports, have you been on a sports team that allowed you to play without a uniform? No? How about ( given the Magic Example) Use whatever card sleeves you want in any combination.. Good luck showing up with even all black sleeves that aren’t the EXACT same size.

      • Avatar
        Ytook December 5, 2019 8:31 am #

        95% of cards that rotate out of standard in MtG are of absolutely no use in modern, pioneer or pauper (let alone legacy/vintage). Maybe you can use them in Commander but that’s because Commander is basically the narrative play of magic where bringing the best possible deck isn’t the point.

        I can completely see why this sucks for a lot of people and it was always going to hurt, but it’s necessary to keep the competitive game contained.

        You can play legends stuff in tournaments that allow it, maybe we’ll see more open play style events allowing legends stuff in a competitive setting which will be like a vintage format.

        Also let’s not pretend this hasn’t happened in the past, previously stuff just didn’t get new rules and was just ignored. At least this way there is some way of using that stuff. It’d be great if everything could be supported and new players able to get everything GW have ever made easily, but that just isn’t going to happen.

        • Avatar
          Zweischneid December 5, 2019 11:50 am #

          GW also rotates out cards and rules more regularly in the games they make (from their end) for a more competitive crowd (e.g. Shadespire, Kill Team Arena).

          40K just isn’t that.

          In the Hasbro/WoTC analogy, Warhammer 40.000 isn’t their MtG, it’s their D&D.

    • Reecius
      Reecius December 5, 2019 9:35 am #

      If yo have a clear theme in your army and it is easy to tell what is what, you’re fine.

      And yeah, love it or leave it, change happens.

      • Avatar
        abusepuppy December 5, 2019 10:25 am #

        That’s quite a statement coming from the guy who is implementing the changes.

        • Reecius
          Reecius December 5, 2019 10:41 am #

          How so?

          • Avatar
            abusepuppy December 7, 2019 7:25 pm

            You’re acting as thought this is an arbitrary, inevitable process that WILL happen no matter what and that you have no control over the matter, which absolutely is not the case. FLG and the ITC have every ability to choose to continue to allow Legends models in their events if they want to do so.

            Is using them the right choice? Maybe it is, maybe it isn’t, but by sidestepping the conversation and pretending as though you have no choice in the matter, we never even get the opportunity to determine that.

            This isn’t “change happens,” this is the FLG team _making_ a change happen. Yes, it is what GW wants for the game, but as we’ve seen many, many, many times in the past and in the present, what GW wants is not always what is good for the game.

          • Avatar
            Cross24 December 7, 2019 10:19 pm

            What I’m struggling to understand is why now? If the LVO is the END of the current ITC season, why can’t folks use them for the last tournament /game of the season? It’s like The patriots sitting a healthy Tom Brady on the bench for the super bowl. How do you determine accurate best general/winner if Generals aren’t allowed to use their players at the end of the season? If you want to disallow their usage for the next ITC season. I’m not sure you’d get the same push back

  15. Avatar
    Ohlmann December 5, 2019 8:51 am #

    @Lark : I litteraly have seen anyone play narrative game, which to be honest is to be expected given how horrible the guiedline are here.

    For the time, you miss the point. As soon as I have used 10 hours in an unit, I will be grumpy if I can’t use it. That have nothing to do with the fact I could replace it easily, and everything with the fact I spent 10 hours on them.

    And if you had played a lot of other games, first you would understand magic a bit better, and then you would see that there is just isn’t many game that force obscolescence (and almost them are trading card game for some reasons).

    @Ytook : which is still a pretty big deal given that a lot of the removed stuff was used competitively. Also, the idea that it can’t avoided don’t mean we cannot criticize how GW do it, and how the ITC follow suit.

  16. Avatar
    Goldy December 5, 2019 3:00 pm #

    I understand Frontlinegameing is working on a size chart to enforce base sizes but I honestly don’t feel like it’s a reasonable way to go about the action of required base sizes. First off you don’t currently have a reference to base what is the correct size to go off for the tournaments being affected with this being the case for GW as well for they have no way of regulating what is the correct base size to use for a model. Secondly there are lots of fringe cases that will need to be address for example the chaos lord with jump pack the only model currently sold as a chaos lord with a jump pack is on a 25mm the most recent chaos lord was with a 40mm you can also find a Lord with a 25mm and a lord with a square base being sold off GWs website. How is anyone supposed to know what base size their converted chaos lord with jump pack is supposed to be on. Third people who buy product from their local game stores which might not have current base sizes being sold from GW which might cause issues if they try to paint it up and base it quick before the tournament without knowing that it’s the wrong base size. Fourth people who have been playing this game for years building their army painting basing spending years painting models having to rebase and spend hours repainting and basing models is kinda dickish to me. Fifth I understand modeling for advantage is an issue and it’s hard to address and this is the issue trying to be fixed but I honestly feel the way to go about it is have people be required to have base sizes for models that have been sold by GW instead of what they are currently being sold as so ork boys can be on either 25mms or 32mms but not 40mms cause they were never sold with them. I find this issue to hard to be addressed correctly as a tournament organization trying to fix an issue they have no control over when this should be an issue GW would need to be in charge to be able to fix correctly.

  17. Avatar
    AlamoMelt December 5, 2019 6:36 pm #

    Hey, maybe you guys mad about Legends can help me out, I’ve got all these 40 year old 8-Track tapes and I keep setting them on the CD tray but when I press play the tray retracts and the 8-Track falls off instead of playing.

    • Avatar
      Beast December 7, 2019 9:14 am #

      That is an absolutely terrible analogy. Even if it is you being deliberately obtuse.

      It’s more like going to a music festival to display your musical talent. Up until now you could use several different formats; 8-Track tapes or CD’s.

      Now the festival organisers have said ‘you can no longer use Tapes.’

      This understandably upsets people who have a large amount of musical talent on those tapes. This is especially upsetting considering that festival has done a full 180 on that particular decision. This is further compounded by the issue that they have close financial ties with the company who sells CD’s.

      Now whether you agree with their decision or not isn’t the point. The point is this; you need better analogies.

      • Avatar
        David December 7, 2019 10:38 am #

        I liked his analogy.

        Like it or not LVO is a giant commercial for GW. That comes with a lots of advantages and some disadvantages for everyone. Format changes are a natural part of the situation. Just like people on the internet being angry about it. Now you have every right to refuse to go along with the update, but you are limiting access to your “music” by doing so.

        IMO, the main issue should be that this decision was made after the refund deadline. So the butthurt can’t get their money back and not go. I’m sure there will be a constant bitching within ear shot for most of LVO about it.

  18. Avatar
    Brother Crimson December 7, 2019 11:21 am #

    Hey Reece,

    First, thanks to upgrade the appearance and painting standards, it will not only affect LVO but set a standard for many other events.

    Second, I hate the idea of legend unit. I think it’s really misleading by GW and it contradict what they said about indexes a while ago. However I can’t hold Frontline Gaming accountable for it. You do with the rules that are given to you.

    Best of luck with the biggest 40k event ever!

    • Avatar
      Zweischneid December 7, 2019 2:52 pm #

      Why? GW has rules for the Legends units. TOs are free to use them, if they want to. Or not use them if they don’t want to?

      How can you hold GW accountable for something where they literally gave TOs the option to have it any way they want?

      If GW had NOT done legends and simply let the rules for those models disappear, you might’ve had a point.

      • Avatar
        rvd1ofakind December 7, 2019 11:32 pm #

        GW pretty much said that these are not recommended for tournaments because they will not see changes in future codexes or chapter approved.

        • Avatar
          Zweischneid December 8, 2019 12:29 am #

          Sure. But it‘s just a recommendation.

          They also recommend 1750 points or less for events, Chapter Approved Missions and up to 50% weighting of Hobby scores, etc. certainly don’t recommend chess clocks, etc..

          It‘s not like ITC has been strong on following GW recommendations.

Leave a Reply