Sgt. Rock

Highlight of OFCC day one: Colonel Voronin tanking two monofilament hits and then killing an Oniwaban in CC. Just had to brag.

Captain Spud's classified deck is from 2015. If this is a new set of classifieds, nobody is going to have access to them until they drop. I have a classified deck, I'm just hoping that I don't have to suddenly replace the one I just bought with a new deck full of new objectives.

I really hope that's not a new classified deck. I just bought a replacement for my old one.

Think you posted on the wrong blog thread, RD.

Okay, so basically, when something says "Jump Pack" it doesn't have any special rules, just is a keyword for interaction with other rules? I suppose that makes sense, then.

Okay, noob question. Where the hell do you find the section in the various rules that explains keywords like vehicle, fly, biker, etc.? I've looked in the big rulebook and the codex, and I can't find anything that explains it.

What WestRider said. They've probably got molds for at least 1/4 of the sprues by now, I'd wager, but the sooner you spoil them, the more people clamor for it and get even more impatient than they already are. Smaller companies actually tend to tease and hype more stuff than this when they're getting ready to make a release, because they need people to run right out and pre-order/buy it when it hits the shelves to make up the cost of the new molds. Granted, those are often only a dozen single models, maybe a book, rather than half a dozen *units* with different poses and three or four vehicles, but still.

I LOVE the muzzles on those new flamers. Really digging the whole "burning torch" thing goin' on.

Wow. So good to see that they're keeping up with the latest developments in the game.

That's really interesting. If that's the case, I could see massive defections of old-school marines to chaos, what with the feelings of bitterness and betrayal that would come with being kicked to the curb like that. But GW's fluff has never made sense, so it probably won't happen. Still, might make for some interesting conversions.

Anecdotal, yes, but the dominance of the Primaris stuff in any of the publications and imagery, and GW's careful efforts to not put Primaris marines next to normal marines in any sort of official image, all kinds of adds up to that end. Kind of irritating, to be honest; if they do go this route, there are going to be a lot of very upset marine players out there. This would be a huge blunder on their part if they actually do this.

I've been seeing a lot about this. I'm not a huge fan of the Primaris marines, to be honest, and every time I see someone say something like this, it makes me feel like I made a mistake buying these Marine models to play Black Templars (as well as possibly getting back into 40k in the first place, if they're going to pull [big bad swear word] like this). Maybe I should have just gone back to orks...

See, I've always thought that was dumb. Its' a limitation of putting guys on such big bases. In real life, it would be super easy to put your back against a wall and cover both directions, but because of that little quirk, you can't. It's pretty stupid, I think.

It's definitely going to be a slow build, if for no other reason than budgetary constraints. I'm probably going to snag the Champ in a couple weeks, and the Rhino after that. Eventually a Razorback would be nice, too. After that, we'll see where it goes. I want to try to sneak in a few small-ish games to see if I like how they play, and if I want to continue building them. I find myself kind of missing my orks already (Especially with the new buggies they showed, those are sexy!) and I haven't even started playing yet...

A hypocrite isn't someone who learns from their mistakes and adapts their viewpoint accordingly. A hypocrite is someone who says/believes something but continues to act in the opposite manner, or believes that their held beliefs don't apply to themselves or their group.

Okay, apologies in advance for the wall of text, but bull[big bad swear word] must be dispelled. Via The Credible Hulk: No, glyphosate is not a "GMO," but rather an herbicide which binds to and inhibits the action of an enzyme known as EPSP synthase, which plants need in order to make three important amino acids: (phenylalanine, tyrosine, and tryptophan) via what's known as the shikimic acid pathway, which is only found in plants and some bacteria, fungi and protozoans. It does this by acting as what’s called an uncompetitive inhibitor. That means that it can only bind to the enzyme-substrate complex – the substrate being shikimate-3-phosphate in this case – and cannot bind the enzyme when the substrate is unbound. Upon binding to the enzyme-substrate complex, glyphosate prevents the complex from forming its product, 5-enopyruvylshikimate-3-phosphate (EPSP). Normally the complex would form EPSP by reacting with another molecule called phosphoenol pyruvate (PEP), but sufficient concentrations of glyphosate reduces the number of units of the enzyme-substrate complex available to form their product. The shikimic acid pathway doesn’t exist in us. Humans and other mammals, for example, can’t make those amino acids at all to begin with, so we get them directly from our food. Plants need those amino acids in order to grow and to make proteins, so if they are unable to synthesize them, they can’t grow, and therefore they die http://www.glyphosate.eu/glyphosate-mechanism-action Regarding claims of glyphosate's alleged carcinogenicity: after well over 40 years of common use, there is still no good evidence that glyphosate use presents any discernible cancer risk to humans. Out of all the reputable scientific organizations to have examined this question, only one of them (the IARC, which does only hazard assessments and not risk assessments) concluded it was a probable carcinogen. Their conclusion was far more subtle than what many media outlets were reporting; (I.e. they never claimed any link between trace amounts of glyphosate on food and cancer). Nevertheless, it later turned out that the review committee had undisclosed conflicts of interest. As reported by Reuters, Christopher Portier, one of the advisors of the review project, had apparently received $160,000 from a CA law firm that was looking to cash in on Prop 65 related class action lawsuits regarding glyphosate (CA was known to use IARC assessments as the basis for its prop 65 updates). It was also revealed that the head scientist of the IARC's review group (Aaron Blair) had withheld information that would have made it less likely to meet their criteria for probable carcinogenicity. Here's the Reuters article about the law firm COI: https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/weedkiller-scientist-was-paid-120-000-by-cancer-lawyers-v0qggbrk6 Here's the one about the IARC's omission of critical data: https://www.reuters.com/investigates/special-report/glyphosate-cancer-data/ And here's journalist Kate Kelland's Reuters reporting (even before that) that the IARC had advised scientists on the panel not to disclose documents under US Freedom of Information Act requests, purportedly in order to prevent the details of their deliberations from being scrutinized. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-health-cancer-iarc-exclusive-idUSKCN12P2FW Moreover, it's worth re-emphasizing that the IARC classification is disputed by other independent scientific organizations based on a lack of compelling evidence for the move: "Following a second mandate from the European Commission to consider the findings from the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) regarding the potential carcinogenicity of glyphosate or glyphosate-containing plant protection products in the on-going peer review of the active substance, EFSA concluded that glyphosate is unlikely to pose a carcinogenic hazard to humans and the evidence does not support classification with regard to its carcinogenic potential according to Regulation (EC) No 1272/2008." http://www.efsa.europa.eu/en/efsajournal/pub/4302 "All available toxicological studies (nearly 300) were re-assessed from the point of view of compliance with actual quality standards in study conduction and confirmation of interpreted results. Furthermore, about 900 publications from scientific journals have been considered in the draft report and more than 200 publications were reviewed in detail. In conclusion of this re-evaluation process of the active substance glyphosate by BfR the available data do not show carcinogenic or mutagenic properties of glyphosate nor that glyphosate is toxic to fertility, reproduction or embryonal/fetal development in laboratory animals." http://www.bfr.bund.de/en/the_bfr_has_finalised_its_draft_report_for_the_re_evaluation_of_glyphosate-188632.html "In a statement likely to intensify a row over its potential health impact, experts from the U.N.'s Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) and World Health Organization (WHO) said glyphosate is "unlikely to pose a carcinogenic risk to humans" exposed to it through food. It is mostly used on crops. Having reviewed the scientific evidence, the joint WHO/FAO committee also said glyphosate is unlikely to be genotoxic in humans. In other words, it is not likely to have a destructive effect on cells' genetic material." http://mobile.reuters.com/article/idUSKCN0Y71HR Which is referencing the following joint FAO/WHO document: http://www.who.int/foodsafety/jmprsummary2016.pdf?ua=1 Health Canada concluded: "An evaluation of available scientific information found that products containing glyphosate do not present unacceptable risks to human health or the environment when used according to the proposed label directions." https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/services/consumer-product-safety/pesticides-pest-management/public/consultations/proposed-re-evaluation-decisions/2015/glyphosate/document.html And the US Environmental Protection Agency (the EPA) issued a review which concluded: "…there is not strong support for the “suggestive evidence of carcinogenic potential” cancer classification descriptor based on the weight-of-evidence, which includes the fact that even small, non-statistically significant changes observed in animal carcinogenicity and epidemiological studies were contradicted by studies of equal or higher quality. The strongest support is for “not likely to be carcinogenic to humans” at the doses relevant to human health risk assessment for glyphosate." http://src.bna.com/iE2 - Cred Hulk Screenshot c/o We Love GMOs and Vaccines

Damn, now I'm questioning my decision to play Black Templars rather than going back to Orks...

That's unfortunate about the Land Speeders and Rhino chassis tanks. I always thought the Speeders and the Whirlwinds were pretty neat. Based on what I have, I put together a quick and dirty 500 point list (does anybody play games that small? If they do, maybe I can find someone to finish teaching me how to play...) that is probably suboptimal, but since I also want to use these models for Kill Team, will allow me to do both. I think my next purchase will be the Emperor's Champion and a Rhino, as I need a way to get that squad across the board and into combat. As far as a Crusader Squad goes, how should I arm them? Is it best to focus on all CC or all shooty, or can I get away with mixing the two a little? For example, right now the build I have has a 10 man squad, 4 Initiates, a Sword Brother, and 5 Neophytes. 2 Initiates have boltguns, 1 has a plasma gun, and one has a chainsword, the Sword Brother has a chainsword and combi flamer. The Neophytes have 2 shotguns, 2 combat knives, and 1 boltgun. Is that trying to do too many things at once? I feel like it's enough to mess up a shooty squad on the way in and in CC, and shooty enough to either resist a charge or soften up a fighty squad. So many options, I don't know what's good!

Hey everyone, so against my better judgment, I'm returning to 40k after about 5 years of not playing. I sold off all my models about 3 or 4 years ago, so I'm starting from scratch. I've settled on Black Templars, at least until the new Sisters of Battle come out next year. I'm not looking to build a *huge* collection of BTs, but I would like to be able to play a small game or three before I start dumping money into the SoB. So far I have the Start Collecting box, a box of Scouts on the way (for Neophytes) and the body of a Dark Angels Company Veteran that I'm going to convert into a chaplain. No idea when or where I got him, he just wound up in my bits box. Anyway, my question is, where do I go from here? I'm a very casual player, not planning on attending any tournaments, so I want something fluffy and fun, but I still want my army to be reasonably effective. What should I buy next? The Emperor's Champion is on my list, and I'm looking at a Rhino for my Crusader Squad(s), maybe a Predator, a Razorback, and/or some Terminators. I'm not sure how I feel about the Primaris marines; on the one hand, they're definitely useful, on the other hand, I think they're kind of dumb. Haven't decided on those yet. So yeah. What's good? What's not? Am I an idiot for picking Black Templars? Help!

As long as nobody minds unpainted stuff ( I know, heresy at OFCC) I could bring my stuff and play after the Infinity event.

Fair enough. I have some NIB Trollbloods, but my Cryx and Khador are all assembled and partially painted. I'll hang onto them for now, then, maybe bring the Trolls by.

Do you work with all minis games? I have a crapload of WarmaHordes that I'm looking to offload...

Holy crap, how did I not see that? Also, why did it come up as new content for me? Sorry, guys.

I'm super curious about Kill Team and I'd love to watch a game. Mind if I show up and gawk?

Yeah, I live in SE PDX. Hillsboro isn't going to happen. I was mostly just wondering if there was going to be an Ordo league, like has been done with Blood Bowl and Necromunda.