Brother Tyler

Assuming you want to focus on the Warhammer 40,000 game or the Kill Team game, I recommend the Astra Militarum as an option. While the poster boy Cadians are closer to modern military forces in appearance, the regiments of the Astra Militarum are drawn from across the breadth of the Imperium and regiments often bear armor, weapons, and wargear that is emblematic of the culture and technological level of their homeworld. You can see examples of the diversity of the Astra Militarum in the images below. Necromunda provides another good alternative, whether you want to go with the Ash Wastes or hive gangers.

Yes, any further debate about female Adeptus Custodes needs to be taken up in the Talons of the Emperor forum.

Since these appear to be out in the wild now, I'm moving the topic over to the Kill Team forum.

I see the Perpetuals as a retcon, but a retcon of lore from the 1st edition of the game, the Sensei. And for what it's worth, I always saw the WH40K Sensei as being inspired by the immortals of the Highlander franchise. So if my theory about the Perpetuals is correct, they are a toning down and revision of [abandoned?] lore from the '80s. This lore hasn't really been touched since the 3rd edition of the game, though you can still find some vestiges of them in the story of the Star-Child (in the Jaq Draco series).

A bunch of posts have been removed because they were (a) off topic, and (b) sociopolitical in nature. Continued violations of the community rules will result in disciplinary action.

So after a delay, the outreach session finally took place today. Despite how much I suck (more on that later), I think it went very well. So how do I suck? The overall summary of my suckiness is that I allowed myself to be distracted by other things. Admittedly, some of those were Real Life things and far more important than the game, but a significant chunk of the time I should have been devoting to preparing for the big day was devoted to some site stuff. I'm kind of excited about that stuff, though, so I'll get over it. The community will be seeing that site stuff SoonTM, too. But a more detailed list of my failings is in order. For starters, I didn't get my Legio kill team finished. I'm a paint snob and, though my skills are mediocre (at best), I won't play with unpainted (or unfinished) miniatures. I allowed myself to be distracted by far too many things to get the Legio models finished to a level with which I was satisfied, so at the last minute I dug out some miniatures that I painted over 20 years ago. They're not great, but they were "finished" to a battle-ready level. I have plans to improve them, but they're serviceable. I also had a bunch of other grandiose ambitions that I failed to achieve. The other big area where I suck is that I totally forgot to take pictures of the game. I didn't quite refresh my understanding of the 2021 edition of the rules to a perfect level, so a couple of things weren't quite up to snuff. It was a friendly game, though, and we realized midway through that we should have been doing a few things a little differently, but those mistakes didn't reduce anyone's fun. Indeed, they probably sped things up a bit, so the small errors may have been beneficial. Things didn't quite go as planned, however. First, it took longer than it should have to get to the game store in which we played (which is a really cool game store, by the way - Hole in the Wall Hobbies in Universal City, TX), partly because of the construction taking place on the freeways (there's always construction taking place somewhere on the freeways here) and partly because my GPS sucks. I got there early, though, since I'm experienced enough to plan for these things. Then one additional player showed up, for a total of five (including me). That would have made things a bit hinky, so the four of them divided into two teams of two and I sat on the side and helped them learn the game. While it was disappointing to not actually play, the whole experience was well worth it and I don't feel that I lost out in the least. While we were playing the 2021 edition of the game, we used a modified version of the Joint Ops rules from the current edition, splitting each player's kill team in half so that we didn't have operatives tripping over each other (and so that the game wouldn't drag out too long). Team Black (based on a coincidence of shirt colors) ended up as a fire team of Necron Warriors and a fire team of Repentia while Team Pink (again, shirt colors) ended up as three Intercessors and two Adeptus Custodes. For terrain, we kept things very simple and used only an old Space Marine statue (from the Cities of Death era), a bunch of barricades (again, from the Cities of Death era), and the actual small barricades for the 2021 edition of the game. They fought out a basic Open Play mission, with a quick movement to contact and deadly scrum. The game ended up being called at the end of turning point three when Team Black had only one Necron Warrior remaining against one Adeptus Custode and one Intercessor. I think everyone was down on wounds, but the writing was definitely on the wall. All in all, it was great fun to introduce fellow hobbyists to a new way to enjoy the hobby. I'm certain that we played a few things incorrectly, but this wasn't a game "to win" - it was a game "to learn." And even though I was on the sidelines, it was great fun to be involved in the game and to watch as their delight in the game grew, cheering on good rolls and groaning at terrible rolls together while encouraging everyone to have fun. It's always great to spend time with good people. Overall, they all said that they had a lot of fun and were very interested in adding Kill Team to their Warhammer 40,000 hobbying, so I'll consider it a mission accomplished.

No, there is no setting to allow members to assign more than one reaction to any content. This is a software limitation, not a setting that we can adjust. The best advice I can give in this area is to give a Like reaction so that the member earns the reputation point and then (drumroll) post a well-reasoned response that identifies the elements of the content that you like/love, which make you laugh [with the member], which you agree with, which you disagree with, and which cause you to pledge your support for the member (it is doubtful that all of those will apply to a single post, but you never know ). This is also where you can use the flexibility of a comment/reply, especially with its emojis, to augment the single option of the reaction system. As far as the images go, a very important issue to remember is that all reaction images have to work for both the dark theme and the light theme. This is why we've mostly (see below) avoided using either black or white backgrounds. Also, not only do we need each image to contrast with both themes, we also want each image to be distinct from the others in terms of the color as well as the iconography. This is intended to reduce confusion. For the most part, we've tried to use reaction icons that are instantly recognizable, being familiar to most members based on common usage across the Internet. Like , Love , and Haha are intuitive and draw upon imagery and colors that can be found across the most popular social media platforms. Agree was a little different in that many agree icons incorporate either a checkmark on a green background, a handshake, or both. The checkmark on the green background was the easiest and most clear, so that won out. Thanks was different from the others in that there doesn't appear to be a standard/common icon. I found a variety of icons that spelled out "Thanks" or "Thank You" as well as a number that incorporated imagery of what appears to be clapping hands. Those options didn't work well at the size that our reaction icons typically display, so the white crux terminatus was chosen as a variation on a plus sign +, with purple selected as the background color for its distinctiveness from the colors of the other icons (orange was the other option, but the majority of those polled preferred purple). Respectfully Disagree was designed to be neutral. Most of my research found "Disagree" icons to use some combination of an X (often a red X or an X on a red background) and a thumbs down. We had already chosen red as the background for the Love icon and wanted to preserve that color combination (though pink was considered as an alternative). In addition, we wanted to make disagreement neutral rather than being a downvote (even though we knew all along that it would be used as a downvote). And while the Respectfully Disagree reaction doesn't remove reputation points, we felt that the flat line was more neutral than the X. We also named it "Respectfully Disagree" rather than just "Disagree" in hopes of mitigating the sting and reducing the chance of flare-ups. The grey background was chosen for the implication of neutrality as well as for its unprovocative nature (nobody "sees grey" when they're angry, after all). Aside from the Thanks icon, the only reaction where we've used in-universe imagery was for Support , and that was only because it worked well. A common Support icon I found was two hands clasped in that manner. There were a few icons that incorporated a cog or a headset-wearing person, but those were all clearly for technical support rather than moral support. The clasped hands worked very well for the concept, and modifying the imagery to that of two Space Marine hands (that's clear, right?) was fairly simple and didn't overcomplicate the image. This is the one reaction that has a white background, largely because I wanted each of the gloves/hands to be a different color and having a third color for the background would overcomplicate things. It is still the most complicated of the reaction images that we have. Something else to keep in mind is that each reaction icon has to be clear at 28 pixels by 28 pixels. The uploaded images are actually 120x120, and the master images are 480x480, but they display at 28x28 and have to be distinguishable at that size. More themed reactions are unlikely. The few that we have are distinct while resembling more common variations found across the Internet, serving as reskins rather than distinct imagery that needs to be interpreted/explained. We could change the Respectfully Disagree icon to a black background, and we could change the - imagery to an X . The question, then, is: Does provide any advantages over ? Alternatively, whether using black or grey, we could simply have the circle without an image. This comes the closest to your purity seal idea (if we use black). If we were to do that we would have or . Would either/both of those convey the concept of disagreement to [new] members? Would they do so in a manner that is clearly superior to either the or ? Would the lack of an image be less provocative? Which of the two is better?

There's a small one coming soonTM.

Thanks for that tutorial. It will definitely come in handy if I ever get around to a techmarine-oriented project, and I could see the concepts being adapted for the Adeptus Mechanicus/Mechanicum as well as for the recovery vehicles used by techmarines. And for those who missed the blog entry, look here.

I can get behind more helmets. The main questions to support that, though, revolve around... What generic (i.e., non-Chapter-specific) helmets are needed across the range of Primaris/Terminator/Sternguard kits that aren't already available? What would the realistic quantities for those be based on common army sizes and compositions? As far as I'm aware, all of the kits come with... enough helmets to give every model a generic helmet a few special helmets to mark out leaders, awards, and things like targeters/bionics a few Chapter-specific helmets to give each squad some nice flavor (for those kits that are Chapter-specific, that is) a few bare heads that fit the theme of the Chapter When you say "beyond just Mk X" do you mean the earlier marks (i.e., firstborn, and not just Mk X helmets that incorporate firstborn stylings)? Or are you referring to the niche suits such as those worn by reivers, eradicators, gravis, etc.? I understand that different people will have different opinions/preferences on this, but I would expect the niche units to have far fewer special helmets and bare heads. After all, if an army typically includes only one of a type of squad, it wouldn't be cost-effective to to include a large number of helmets that are meant for that unit type. I doubt that Mk VIII and earlier helmets would ever be included in such a kit - GW simply isn't supporting these marks anymore. At best, we might see an updated Vanguard Veteran kit akin to the Sternguard Veteran kit, incorporating one or two helmets from the previous marks while adjusting the armour to Mk X. I can get behind this idea, too, sort of. The question here, though, is about quantity/distribution (i.e., how many longtitudinal and how many transverse?). Having attempted this conversion a few times, I would prefer one-piece crested helmets, but the conversion isn't so difficult to pull off that just crest bits would be objectionable. On the subject of the heads that appear feminine, I think the answer to that has been provided by several previous posts - it's the paint job and not the facial structure (note, that's just my opinion). If GW had just posted pictures of unpainted plastic, or basecoated and inked heads, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Since the 'Eavy Metal team included some painting elements that resemble makeup, however, many hobbyists see femininity (whether they approve or object). You would be amazed at what a paint job/makeup can achieve (and if you don't know what I'm talking about, check out Too Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything, Julie Newmar ). For those who want to use any of the heads in this kit (or many of the currently available heads, for that matter - it's really the paint job that matters) for female models, whether Adeptus Astartes or other, more power to you. For those who don't, more power to you, too. Everyone is free to participate in the hobby in a manner that suits them, including assembling/painting their miniatures in a manner that reflects their views on the hobby and their emotional/psychological well-being. =][= And on that note that I've hidden/edited a few posts that started delving into the debate over female Adeptus Astartes, both for and against, or which created the potential for that debate to flare up here. Whether or not any of the heads is/appears feminine is a fair issue to discuss here in this topic, but we don't need to debate the issue of female Adeptus Astartes in this topic (take that to the + ADEPTUS ASTARTES + forum if you want to start that train wreck, but the staff will keep a close eye on that one and the topic will be locked as soon as it becomes problematic). And whatever your opinion on the subject, we will not be discussing the socio-political aspects of the issue, including your opinions of people based on their views on the issue, here at the B&C. Time and again we have proven that, though some individuals may be able to discuss the matter in a mature and constructive manner, too many of us are not and we collectively turn on ourselves over an issue that is far too divisive in a manner that is antithetical to our mission statement. Everyone has, and is entitled to, their own views on this and the B&C isn't the place for the inevitable flame wars that erupt around this issue. From here on out, any replies in this discussion that jump into or threaten to lead to that tangent will be hidden in their entirety (instead of simply being edited as I've done with the recent few).

The most recent posts about female Adeptus Astartes have been removed as off-topic. If you want to discuss the concept of female Adeptus Astartes, you should take it up in the + ADEPTUS ASTARTES + forum. Be forewarned: historically, the issue is extremely controversial and tempers have flared out of control (on both sides of the issue), resulting in the topics being locked (and disciplinary action occasionally having to be taken). As for the issue of the number of bare heads versus the number of helmets, and just bare heads in general, having more bare heads makes sense to me. The Chapter-specific sprues tend to have heads/helmets that are appropriate to the Chapters, focusing on iconography and other thematic elements that make them recognizable as the Chapter in question. The squad boxes tend to have sufficient generic helmets to give every model an appropriate helmet, with a few extra helmets and bareheaded options that give hobbyists flexibility. This kit, meanwhile, is a [mostly] generic kit that works for all/most Adeptus Astartes units. In that, it's appropriate for there to be a range of generic bare heads, allowing hobbyists to choose those that work for them and the style they're trying to achieve. There are a few helmeted options that are different from those found in the squad boxes as well as the Chapter upgrade sprues, working for just about any Chapter and giving this kit broader appeal. The distinctive veteran units (Terminators and Bladeguard) have fewer helmet options, but that's appropriate to the lower density at which they appear in armies (Deathwing notwithstanding). Bare heads are a fun way to give models a bit of character and are great for people that can paint them well (and terrible for those of us who can't ). The sheer number of bareheaded options in this kit allows players to have multiple bareheaded Adeptus Astartes in their squads/armies without having twins all over the place.