Brother Tyler

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.

Whatever it was appears to have fixed itself.

We'll look into it.

In principle, I agree that disagreeing with someone in a constructive discussion is best done by providing counterarguments via a [thoughtful] response. However, this is the Internet, not a venue where discussion actually tends to follow generally accepted rules for discussion or logical reasoning. By "rules for discussion" I am not alluding to our community rules. Instead, I am referring to guidelines/rules such as the Chatham House Rule or Robert's Rules of Order (among many others - use your favorite search engine or AI to research "rules of discussion"). For those who do not understand what I mean by "logical reasoning," a quick search on the Internet will yield information that is far more in-depth than I have time to provide. Most "discussion" here is really subjective, and too often it is simply opinionating, not inviting or being open to thoughtful discussion or logical reasoning. As a result, most "discussions" devolve into pointless bickering over issues that cannot and will not be resolved simply because they are based on opinion and not on provable fact. I can provide my opinion on, say, Lion El'Jonson's return and someone with an opposing viewpoint might provide their counterarguments, but the likelihood of anyone being persuaded to change their opinion (not just me and the member with the opposing view, but also those members that are observing the "debate") is extremely low. There are exceptions, of course, but these are few and far between. Most of the time, people simply start repeating themselves, and others pile in on one side or the other, but very little traction is made and things tend to go downhill until Godwin's law is realized. Some members choose not to engage in debates for a variety of reasons. Some may feel that they are not equipped to engage in a debate. Others may feel that debating is pointless because they don't believe that the member(s) with the opposing viewpoints are willing to truly engage in a reasoned discussion. Sometimes, someone else provides well-reasoned counterarguments and there isn't a need to repeat what someone else has already said. It's very easy to chalk other members' decision to not provide counterarguments up to laziness, but often it is the result of experience and/or emotional intelligence. After all, what's the point of debating with someone if they're not open to other viewpoints and are unlikely to change their mind? As for the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction not providing any value, that is demonstrably false. At the most basic level, it signals that some number of members disagree with something that someone has posted (or they find it offensive, though that is often left to inference). If I post a contentious opinion and twenty people assign the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction, I know that many people disagree with me, even if no one takes the time to post counterarguments. Naturally, the number and types of other reactions that my post receives also have to be considered, especially if some number of members assign the "Agree" reaction. If nobody assigns positive reactions (and we have to ignore the "HAHA" reaction in this instance since there are members that have weaponized that reaction as an abusive attack on other members), that is very different from fifteen members assigning the "Agree" reaction, 8 members assigning the "Like" reaction, and 2 members assigning the "Thanks" reaction (again, compared to 20 "Respectfully Disagree" reactions). And if one or more members do take the time to post counterarguments, evaluating the reactions that are assigned to their post(s) and the members who assigned them can give me insight into the contrasting arguments, how many members might fall into either/any of the camps, and how those members feel about the various arguments brought up on either side. Regardless, there is no way that we can force people to submit replies that provide counterarguments to posts made by other members. The software can't do this mechanically, and I highly doubt that the Invision staff would even consider trying to code the software to try anything like this. Staff members can't force people to submit content. The time and effort required to even attempt such a (hypothetical) policy would be staggering. Keep in mind that every single staff member here is a volunteer and all time taken for work is time that they can't spend on the hobby or other things. No one is getting paid, and a handful of us (me and a few others who donate regularly) are spending money out of our own pockets to keep the site and the community up and running. Attempting to force members to participate in discussion following the rules of discussion and logical reasoning would require a full-time paid staff at least 5 times the size of the current staff. And all that would yield would be data about members who have assigned the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction without providing a well-reasoned response - we still wouldn't be able to force members to actually make the desired responses (so the time and effort would be for nothing - a complete waste of time). Any effort beyond encouraging members to engage in constructive discussion (which is where we currently sit via our community rules and occasional interventions) would be a Sisyphean task. Removing the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction would simply deprive members of an easy tool to signify their disagreement with something that someone else said. It is extremely unlikely that members would feel compelled to provide their constructive counterarguments. A few might, sure, but the number of such members would likely be extremely low, perhaps even negligibly so. The more likely outcome is that more members would weaponize the "HAHA" reaction in an antisocial manner and/or there would be more of the bickering that we see all too often here. The "best" result we might reasonably expect, and that simply means the least bad result, is that there would be no change elsewhere and we would lose the registry of disagreement reactions. Changing the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction to grant a reputation point to the member who posted the content that is being disagreed with would be counterintuitive, as discussed in my previous post. Similarly, changing any reaction to grant a reputation point to the member giving the reaction would simply incentivize spamming reactions, potentially reducing the responses that are submitted and very likely giving a false impression of the impact of content. Reactions are a form of engagement, however, so members earn achievements for assigning reactions to other members' content. Since reactions are very easy to give, however, and since they provide little in the way of understanding/enjoying the hobby (they are community-focused, not hobby-focused), the progression for achievements for giving reactions is extremely high. In fact, it is the highest progression. The requirement to earn the gold achievement badge for giving reactions is 20,000 reactions. With a limit of 100 reactions per day, it would take a member almost half a year to earn that badge if they maxed out. The last time I checked, no one was giving anywhere near that number of reactions per day. Ultimately, all of the reactions, including "Respectfully Disagree" provide value in that they are a form of engagement. Yes, there are definitely times when thoughtful posts are better than reactions, and the two can be used in conjunction for best effect. By themselves, though, they are clearly better than nothing. The first element of the proposal - changing the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction so that it grants a reputation point to the member who posted the disagreeable content - would be counterintuitive and imprudent. The second element of the proposal - forcing/compelling members to post comments/replies instead of or in addition to giving the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction - is unfeasible.

Note that I split the side discussions about T'au suit nomenclature and whether or not Wolf Scouts are "veterans" into their own discussions in the appropriate faction forums so that this discussion could remain on topic about the expansion and the models within. Those other topics are worth pursuing, but in their own discussions with the appropriate audience, allowing this discussion to maintain the proper focus on the subject at hand.

Okay, let's walk the dog on this... The intent behind the reactions is to provide members with another method for engaging with members of the community. Reactions are a very easy method for engaging, but provide little in the way of real content, generally indicating some sort of favorable response to the content that the other member submitted (agreeing with them, liking the content, thanking them, etc.). Those favorable reactions award a reputation point as an indicator that the content is favorable in some way. Currently, the only exception to this is the Respecfully Disagree reaction, which neither awards a reputation point nor takes reputation point away. Under the current settings, it is intended to be a neutral response. Yes, members often use it in a way that replicates a "downvote" as may be found on other sites (in much the same way that "Like" and the others might be considered a form of "upvote"), but where the other reactions confer a reputation point (making them more closely resemble and "upvote"), this reaction doesn't remove a reputation point (making it look much less like a "downvote"). Practically speaking, it's also important to consider the fact that members don't always have the time to compose replies to all the content they find in our community, whether providing detailed descriptions of things they like, identifying points with which they disagree, etc. Nor should such responses always be a requirement - reactions are always decent indicators of what members think about content without people needing to spend time composing or reading lengthy replies. If someone says something funny, I can use the HAHA reaction without having to post a comment/reply that I think the content was funny - the reaction is sufficient. If I had to take the time to compose replies, even short ones, to all of the content that I see here, I wouldn't have time for other things. In this, the reactions provide a level of efficiency for all involved without burdening them (or scaring them away) with an artificial requirement to compose replies to everything. The one area where we hope that members will take the time to compose a reply, however, is when they disagree with something that someone else says. Disagreement is inevitable, especially given the diversity of issues and tastes. Engaging in respectful discussion helps members of the community to understand the differing viewpoints of other members of the community. Many members, however, do not engage in such discussion for a variety of reasons, and it would be impossible for us to force them to do so. This is an alternative that has been proposed in the past, but it has always failed because it is completely unenforceable. If a member doesn't want to compose a comment/reply, or if they don't have the time, there is no way that they can be forced to do so, nor should they. So the Respectfully Disagree reaction provides members with a time-efficient method for indicating their disagreement without having to compose a [lengthy] reply. Your suggestion is for a member who submits content to receive a reputation point any time someone else disagrees with them. Such reputation points contribute to a member's reputation level, allowing them to progress through the levels based on other members' responses to their content (i.e., the more [positive] reactions that a member receives, the higher their reputation level will be). Note that members are already earning achievements through submitting content. So any time a member creates a topic, posts a comment/reply, submits an image, etc., the system logs the behavior and their rank can improve as a result. In this, rank can be construed as a measure of a member's contributions to the community whereas reputation can be construed as other members' reactions to those contributions. So what happens if someone says something with which others disagree? Take this further - what happens if someone says something that others perceive as ridiculous or offensive? While some members might respond in kind, potentially leading to a flame war, hurt feelings, etc., members can signify their disagreement with the content through the simple expedient of the Respectfully Disagree reaction; and if they believe that the content violates the community rules, they should also REPORT the content to the staff so that we can evaluate it and take appropriate action. Under your suggestion, the member contributing the disagreeable/ridiculous/offensive content would also have their reputation advanced. Keep in mind that the member contributing the disagreeable/ridiculous/offensive content is already racking up achievement points for the content. Let's say that I post some topic suggesting that only people that share my views should be allowed to play the game. Other players would likely disagree with that; and if I were to phrase my suggestion in a way that's offensive (belittling other viewpoints/people, for example), it might be considered a violation of the community rules. The basic method by which members might "voice" their disagreement would be by using the Respectfully Disagree reaction. Under your suggestion, I would also earn a reputation point. Does that outcome seem right to you?

I have a suspicion (or maybe it's just me being hopefully/naively optimistic) that the tomb world terrain will be released separately, which will be especially useful and (hopefully) attractive to hobbyists that don't [just] play Kill Team. If GW gives a big tomb world box in the same manner as the Gallowdark/Boarding Actions box, more players are likely to purchase it. Given how much I paid for the Deathwatch/Necrons box, not including the terrain in this one may be viewed as a way to reduce the price point (which would be especially good for hobbyists who purchased the Deathwatch/Necrons box). Paint jobs never worry me overmuch (especially since they're always far better than I can accomplish ), but I'm curious about the varying great company markings on the Space Wolves models. A few use the left shoulder pad of Ragnar Blackmane's great company whereas most use that of the Great Wolf's great company. That inconsistency makes my eyes twitch (though maybe it's ignorance on my part - I'm not as knowledgeable about the Space Wolves as I am about most other Chapters). Overall, I like the Space Wolves models (though I think that bare arms on Adeptus/Heretic Astartes are dumb). I always chalk the bare heads thing (which I also think is dumb from a void warfare perspective) as artistic license and the rule of cool, so I can accept the very characterful bare heads as helping to sell the Chapter's theme. I'm especially pleased to see that the Fenrisian Wolf is big, but not ridiculously big (don't get me started on the wolf riders). Having just purchased the Deathwatch/Necrons kit yesterday, and after reading the Joint Ops campaign that is contained therein, I expect that this Space Wolves/T'au set will be a great addition for anyone who plays one of those factions. I play neither faction, so I don't plan to purchase this box, but I may buy the campaign stuff (the dossier and any cards/tokens that are specific to that campaign) if they become available separately later. The Joint Ops campaigns are a great way for hobbyists to play solo and to help them to bring new hobbyists into the addiction. I just wonder which side will serve as the aggressors (i.e., player-controlled operatives) and which will serve as the antagonists (i.e., non-player operatives) in this campaign. From the looks of it, the T'au are the active faction here, which should prove interesting (unless I'm wrong, but the opposite would also be interesting). Worst case scenario: Anyone who plays one of these factions in the Warhammer 40,000 game (and not Kill Team) could split the box with someone else to give their WH40K armies a bit more in the way of distinct and characterful models.

If I'm interpreting your suggestion correctly, it comes down to: change the "Respectfully Disagree" reaction so that it grants 1 reputation point* (as opposed to 0, which is the current setting). Is that correct? * For clarity, there are only three options regarding the number of reputation points a reaction can confer: -1, 0, +1. This is a limitation within the software, not a policy that we have created. The only extent of our "policy" is determining which of those three options that we select in the settings.

Good news! Both boxes (I checked) were still there. And then there was one. Bad news: There goes my hobby budget for the rest of the year.

It's always interesting to see loyalist Chapters descended from the traitor legions. The one thing that stands out to me as problematic (unless there's a solid explanation) is the Chapter's homeworld: Nostramorth. The name itself is clearly derived from the Night Lords Legion's homeworld of Nostrama. Added to that are the similarities in the level of crime and the gloomy atmosphere. The likelihood of this being a coincidence is extremely low, so I'm inclined to think that it was a deliberate choice - that the Penitent Legion specifically sought a world that was reminiscent of their destroyed homeworld and then re-named their prize after that world. That being the case, some level of explanation, even if only very brief, should be included in the article to head off questions and comments about the similarities. I'm looking forward to seeing the Chapter's color scheme and other icons.

All we know is that it was black and orange, though the actual arrangement of those colors was never described. In his mind's eye, Decario had drifted tens of thousands of light years - and a century and a half - away, in any case. He was clad in the same suit of Terminator armour, but it was painted in the proud colours of the Fire Claws Chapter: orange and black. His right fist crackled with the energy of an oversized power glove - and he was certain that he was about to die. Angron's Monolith by Steve Lyons

I'd make it so that Chaos never influenced the infant Primarchs, thus preventing the Horus Heresy and leading to a golden age where Humanity rules the galaxy in peace under the benevolent rule of the Emperor and his well-adjusted sons (and all those dirty xenos would have been exterminated), putting an end to war and poverty. The planetary and stellar systems would be aligned, bringing them into galactic harmony and allowing meaningful contact with all forms of [non-xenos/Chaos] life, from lost pockets of humanity to common household pets. And it would be most excellent for dancing. Instead of playing a game about war, we could play a game about music, poetry, art, rainbows, and butterflies. On a more serious note, while there are many things that I dislike, the main thing I would want changed would be for the Fire Claws to resume their rightful name and livery, ditching the insulting "Relictors" name and its penitent colors entirely. Either that or have them fully commit to their heresy, with the concomitant consequences.

One of the interesting things about DIY development is how ideas and preferences evolve over time. Personally, I never had a problem with the "Heralds of Light" moniker, seeing it as being similar in format to the Angels of Vigilance, the Sons of Orpheus, and similarly named Chapters. However, as I always emphasize, a DIY is for its creator*, not the audience. Ultimately, the creator makes all decisions based on their personal preferences. Besides, there's nothing wrong with the Vigilant Fists name, either. * Unless the creator is creating the DIY for someone else, in which case that someone else is the ultimate authority. I've updated all entries in the Tabula Astartes to reflect the change in the Chapter's name.

The skull face is a very nice touch, giving the character some Death Jester/Dark Reaper vibes. It gives the model a lot of character.