Show Notes
12-13-14
Intro
- Follow us on Twitter, Facebook, and YouTube! Join our Forums, too! If you would like to be a guest on the show, email Reece at Contact@FrontlineGaming.org
- We sell tabletop games and supplies at 20% off! Hit us up for your next gaming order at Orders@FrontlineGaming.org or visit our webstore at FrontlineGaming.org.
News
- Last Episode we said Warmachine Weekend was in Florida, but Reecius got confused in his old age and got confused. The event is in St. Louis, MO. Sorry for the confusion!
- The results of the vote to change Invisibility or not came in.
- GW has new BA Terminators and a Terminator Librarian up for Pre-Order! Shoot your orders in to Orders@FrontlineGaming.org
- Toughest Girls in the Galaxy are now shipping some of their hotly anticipated models!
- Gamecraft releases a new SciFi building and it looks slick! 15mm scale
- Pathfinder releases some pre-painted minis of their Iconic Characters.
- DzC shows off a new named character Hellhog for the Resistance, and a piece of art showing off the bridge of an Avenger ship.
- Colockwork Goblin shows a new release, a little walker tank that looks pretty slick.
- Heavy Gear posts a picture of their special December release, a Chibi Hunter, and it’s so cute!
- Privateer Press unveils Iron Kingdoms Unleashed Adventure Pack.
Upcoming ITC Events
- Today is the last day to get your TSHFT hotel room, so be sure to do that if you want to go. It is in January and is an ITC event.
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.
- Pics all over the net of what appear to be new Necrons. These may be conversions but they look pretty awesome. Warriors have a new gun that looks like the Immortal’s gun. And, there is a new Lord that is awesome looking, but may be a conversion. Also, rules for a new Necron Detachment are floating around.
- Awesome art from the new book that looks amazing.
- Rumors indicate that Necrons are inbound but not likely before X-Mas.
- Not many new models, but supposedly a new Lord, possibly a Cryptek and the Dex is said to be really big, almost Marine sized, with lots of LoW, and Formations.
- Rumors indicate no Supplement for them, but possibly alternate detachments in their book itself.
- Campaign book to follow for them.
- Rumors about a ton of new BA formations on the way.
Rant Session
- In list discussion.
Tactics Corner
- DzC UCM vs. PHR
Rules Lawyer
- Does a LoW or Fortification count as a Detachment?
Completed Commissions
Chaos Characters, painted to a level 3 standard!
List Review
| IG | 1850pts | ||
| Unit | Description | Size | Cost |
| HQ | |||
| Punisher | Pask | 1 | 230 |
| Plasmsacutioner | 1 | 185 | |
| Yarrick | 1 | 145 | |
| Priest | 1 | 25 | |
| Troops | |||
| PCS | Flamer x 2 | 5 | 40 |
| Platoon Squad | L.Cannon, M.Bombs | 10 | 75 |
| Platoon Squad | L.Cannon, M.Bombs | 10 | 75 |
| Platoon Squad | L.Cannon | 10 | 70 |
| Conscripts | 20 | 60 | |
| Veterans | M.Gun x 2, H.Flamer | 10 | 90 |
| Taurox | 1 | 50 | |
| Elites | |||
| Fast Attack | |||
| Vendetta | 1 | 170 | |
| Vulture | Punishers | 1 | 155 |
| Heavy Support | |||
| Wyvern | 1 | 65 | |
| Knight Formation | |||
| Knight Acheron | 1 | 415 | |
| Fortifications | |||
| Totals | 74 | 1850 |
Steve cheated me in the exact same way. In all fairness, it wouldn’t have made a difference in the outcome of the game.
He’s a dirty rat, see!
I think one of the confusion things about if LoW or Fortifications take up a detachment is how you word the list restrictions on the LVO/BAO tournament Page:
2 Detachments Total. You may take any 2 detachments you wish, but may not repeat any detachments.
0-1 CAD
0-1 Codex Specific Detachment
0-1 Allied Detachment
0-1 Formation
0-1 Fortification
0-1 Lord of War
Because you list Fortification and Lord of War as a 0-1 option with the other detachments, it looks like you guys are considering fortifications and LoW’s as their own detachments
Ah, very good point! Yes, we actually may have contributed to the confusion, lol. Doh!
Reece, they dont allow old people in the club
Damn! How am I supposed to do the Dougie, now?
God dam 30mm bases…..
Damnit Damnit Damnit. I dont want to rebase all my models
I’m not rebasing mine, I can tell you that, haha.
Super heavies can’t jink, pg 638 digital rulebook
Good catch!
It’s Andy Chambers, rather than Rick Priestley working on Dropfleet Commander. And that’s a work in progress name.
Awesome podcast as always though!
Damn, got a few facts wrong in this one.
It is possible to take an all FW knight detachment you just can’t double up on any one type of knight. That’s the rules per the forgeworld knight PDFs. Is it changed for LVO? Or did you just miss read the rule Reece?
Hmm, that is actually a good question…I had not thought about it that way.
I just ordered my Acheron to accompany my Lancer at the LVO. When I heard you talking about the knight detachment my heart dropped.
That is actually a really good question, we will hit up FW and ask them.
Can you let me know the answer you get from them? cause it’s a pretty big deal for me if I gotta change that out. Also really disappointing.
RAW, it certainly names each knight by name, rather than saying you can’t have more FW knights than other types of knight.
Yeah, as it’s worded it’s definitely on a per-type basis, not by chassis.
Their email wasn’t working last night, I kept getting it kicked back to me.
Well, here’s the text: Cerastus Knight-Acherons may be
chosen as part of a Codex: Imperial Knights army as you
would other types of Knight. However, owing to their rarity
in the 41st Millennium, you may not have more Cerastus
Knight-Acherons in your army than you have Knights of
other kinds.
Taken literally, you can’t have more of the Cerastus than other Knights. 1>0, so per RAW, you would have to take a Knight Paladin or Errant to have a Cerastus at all. What is your fellas’ counter to that?
Literally by RAW you can’t have more cerustus lancer,Acheron or castigator than any other knight.it does not just say cerestus or cerestus knight. By RAW there is nothing stopping you from running a lancer and Acheron without paladin or errant.
How so?
I guess I am just stuck on that more of Knight X than another kind. 1>0. However, that is pretty rigid. You could interpret that to mean: if you take a single Knight Cerastus X, you have to take every other type of knight, also to have an equal amount, which is pretty silly.
Another way to read it is as you can’t take a second Knight Cerastus type X before you have another type of Knight, so then you could only ever have 1 of any type of FW Knight with that rule.
Or, you can read it as you can take 1-3 Cerastus type X, but cannot take more than any other chassis if you mix Chassis…which is bizarre and seems to go counter to the intent. haha, you can take 3 in a detachment if they are all the same, but not if you mix in a Paladin.
This is a directly copied and pasted off the FW pdf.
Using the Cerastus Knight-Acheron in your army in games of Warhammer 40,000
Codex: Imperial Knights: Cerastus Knight-Acherons may be chosen as part of a Codex: Imperial Knights army as you would other types of Knight. However, owing to their rarity in the 41st Millennium, you may not have more Cerastus Knight-Acherons in your army than you have Knights of other kinds.
So you interpreted “you may not have more Cerastus Knight-Acherons in your army than you have Knights of other kinds.” As “you may not have more Cerastus Knight-Acherons in your army than you have Knights of other chassis”?
What differentiation is there between “kind” and “chassis” in your mind?
“Kind” i read as model/unit. I never read it as chasis because I haven’t read anything that indicates that should pay attention to the chasis. The chasis is simply part of the name.
The magera knight has the same rule about being a rare knight, so by following the chasis logic I wouldn’t be able to take an errant or a palidin in the same detachment because they are all on the same chasis.
Let’s step through it.
Assuming I have 1 Cerastus Knight-Lancer. When is that invalid, according to this rule?
It’s invalid, only if there are no knights of any other type present.
So, assuming I have 1 knight, of any type (including one with this rule, itself), isn’t that a valid list? Because there are not more Cerastus Knight-Lancers than there are say Cerastus Knight-Acherons. Likewise there are not more Cerastus Knight-Acherons than there are Cerastus Knight-Lancers.
Functionally, this seems designed to prevent you just spamming Cerastus Knight-Acheron with two or three of them in a list. At least that’s my ruling.
Otherwise, they would have made it a “relic knight” rule or something, and said that you can’t have more knights with the relic knight rule than knights without.
As it is, they specifically name the models. Chassis as far as I can see, doesn’t come into it.
So this is the conversation I had with FW over email.
Me
“By type do you mean chasis? So I’d first have to take a
Paladin or an errant before taking any of the cerestus knights ? I was reading as though I could take an Acheron and a Lancer both being a different unit. I just couldn’t take 2 lancer because of the rule about them being rare.
My army I was building was going to be
A space marine detachment
A allied knight detachment that was
1x knight Lancer
1x knight Acheron
Can I legally do that?
Sent from my iPhone”
FW,
“Hi Peter.
As an example, if you had a Lancer but you wanted another one you would first have to take another type of Knight such as a Castigator or Styrix.”
So have you figured out what you’re doing for the LVO?
We’re working it out. The language is so muddy. I believe we will allow 1 of any type (meaning chassis or variant) but cannot have 2 of the same with the limiting rule if you do not have an equal amount another type. However, if you have only 1 of the same type, you can max it out. That feels so weird though as the rule is meant to show how rare they are.
So my list would be illegal?
I don’t know what your list is.
By saying chasis or variant you’ve thrown me off what do you mean by variant? Does variant mean unit or just a double down on saying chasis? I’m sorry if this is a dumb question but I need a direct answer on if my list will be legal or not. I will get four days over Christmas to build/paint my army. Past that I don’t have much guarantied time to finish my list up.
No worries, it is confusing. When I say type I mean Archaeon, or Lancer, etc. So, you could take one of each.
Rules lawyer for you Reece, RE the sporefield formation Nids.. the ‘new’ spore mines.. Can they deep strike or do they have to walk on? RAW I think they have to walk on but makes no real sense. Wondering how you are playing it for the LVO (same for gargoyles in skyblight). Makes sporefield very useless if they have to walk on…
Cheers
Umbo
We will hit that on the next show, thanks for the submission.
Sanctuary 101 boxed set and campaign please.
Give me your clothes, your boots and your motorcycle
yeah, the wording for knights mans you should be able to to take two lancers and 2 castigators… or any other combination of two.
but the only way to pull that off would be, to take a lord of war cerastus variant and then three in another detachment
Not that anyone here is planning on that…
How are you getting that? Am I reading a different document?
A Knight detachment is 1-3 Knights. You cannot take more Cerastus than other types of Knights. 1 is more than 0.
Are you reading it as the 0 not counting towards that rule?
Let’s look at this as a basic logic scenario, using the “If, Then” format.
Variables:
“Codex: Imperial Knights” = Choice A
“Other Armies of the Imperium” = Choice B
Limitations:
A is exclusive to B, meaning you can’t have both A & B within the same detachment.
**From the FW Rules PDF for Cerastus Knight-Acheron**
—————————————————-
Choice A
“Codex: Imperial Knights: Cerastus Knight-Acherons may be chosen as part of a Codex: Imperial Knights army as you would other types of Knight. However, owing to their rarity in the 41st Millennium, you may not have more Cerastus Knight-Acherons in your army than you have Knights of other kinds.”
—————————————————-
Choice B
“Other Armies of the Imperium Factions: A Cerastus Knight-Acheron may be taken as a Lords of War choice for any faction that is a part of the Armies of the Imperium (see the Warhammer 40,000 rulebook).”
—————————————————-
If you want to take a Knight Army (Detachment, Primary or ‘Allied”), then see choice A and its criteria.
In this case, you can never take more that 1 FW Cerastus in a 1-3 Knight Detachment.
1 FW & 1 GW legal
1 FW & 2 GW legal
2 FW & 1 GW illegal
—————————————————-
If you want to take a FW Cerastus in your Imperial Faction Army, then see choice B and its criteria.
In this case, the FW Cerastus no longer exists as an entry within Codex: IK; It becomes a LOW entry for w/e Imperial Faction Codex comprises the army.
Since a standard CAD has options for ‘0-1’ Lords of War, the player must decide whether to include one to start with, followed by which LOW entry from his/her available options, to ultimately include.
Because a FW Cerastus is now a LOW entry for Imperials within the choice B setup, it is thus legal to include in your Imperial Faction Army List.
I hope this helps to clarify and not further confuse.
– Chris
No, this is where I was going with it, too. Thanks for taking the time to post this.