Dr_Ruminahui

You can name him "Da Skippa" and give him a companion named Grotiggan.

Are you just interested in Night Lords stuff - if so, Tallarn Commander's thread has some insane conversions. If its chaos marines more generally, I can come up with some suggestions, including my own conversion/kit bash thread (though, that has things like knights in it too). Others include Volgon's undead heretic astartes, and I'm sure I could come up with more with some head scratching and digging. Indeed, if you are interested in conversions irrespective of faction, there are worst things to do than brouse the various threads in the Artisan's Workshop. As for lore, you'll need another frater to help you with that - that's not really a part of the hobby I'm personally into.

Always great to see your boys in blue on the table. I'm sure looking forward to seeing your mutilators painted, those are going to be sweet. Did you find they still had value after they dropped - one concern is that, with their low movement, is that they essentially only do one thing in a game. That said, if that thing is killing a Repulsor Executioner (that tank is the bane of my army) that would probably be worth it. I got a chuckle from your opponent's unpainted "camoflage" comment. According to my google-fuu, the big bug with the smoke stacks is a psychophage - now what that means, I can't tell you. And with tyranids, there's always another big bug, so I definitely feel for your possessed.

Yeah, I've played the Priority v Disposition match-up twice in a row (against different opponents - lost as Priority both times) - and yeah, for some reason its remarkably difficult to get one's head around. Basically, in each game we had to go through the VP scoring on each card beside each other to figure out how the mission was supposed to play.

I like your new warbosses. You should paint the one with the peaked "commissar" hat with a white hat so it looks appropriately naval.

I think your recollection is correct, DemonGSides. To put it into context, "detachments" (as in structural organizational limitations", however named) have been a things since way back to 3rd edition (and maybe prior, but I'm unfamiliar with those rules). Basically, back then there was real friction between taking units because they were good and taking "a proper army" with a lot of basic troops. So, from 3rd to 7th (I think), the rules were written in a way to encourage this "proper" type of army construction, and broke units into different force organization types - so Troops (what are battleline today) with 2 mandatory and 4 additional optional slots (so, 2-6), HQ (so characters) with 1 mandatory and 1 optional (so, 1-2), and then three optional categories - Elites (so, non-battleline infantry), Fast Attack (fast stuff, like bikes, jump infantry and speeders), and Heavy Support (basically everything else that wasn't a dedicated transport) - all of which were 0-3 for each category. And dedicated transports, the exact ratios for which I don't remember. So, while there weren't hard limits on any particular unit, there was for each category, essentially creating a limit of 3 for any given unit, or 6 for troops. Which is probably where those numbers today come from. Now, as editions progressed, it became clear that this rigid structure, while being "proper" for many armies, excluded many army classic archetypes, and GW began to tweak it. One of the first instances was the 2nd 3rd ed. chaos codex, where certain legions tweaked the limits (iron warriors got +1 Heavy Support for -1 Fast Attack, and Night Lords vice versa). Another was Imperial Guard (what is now Astra Militarum), which was the first codex (to my recollection) that let you get multiple units for one slot - you could get up to 6 infantry squads for one Troops slot, I think. Eventually (and I think this was in 4th) this was opened up even more for Imperial Guard Armoured company, which was the first (I think) that let you take up to 3 tanks in one slot, essentially creating what is now the vehicle squadron for things what weren't light walkers (as I think IG sentinels and ork killa kans were already 1-3 unit - and there may have been some other light non-walkers that worked this way, like ork buggies/wartracks). Then, as discussed by DemonGSides, in 8th GW created a more complicated detachment system, where a player could essentially chose more than one OG style detachment, with different types with different unit limits (so, there was a Fast Attack one with multiple FA slots + an HQ, a heavy one, and elite one, etc). Given that the way these worked didn't require everything to come from one codex, this allowed quite a bit of diversity in force creation, especially for imperial forces. As this could allow for potent combinations and/or the ability to "cherry pick" the most efficient units from various codexes and create a force that some felt wasn't representative of how an actual army should look like, this attracted the pejorative term "soup" / "souping". In 9th, this became even more controversial as the game benefit of doing so increased - where in addition to picking the best units, taking multiple detachments was the way you got more CP. Another issue that came up was the spamming of units - throughout this process, the game retained the "squadron" system established in past editions to allow players to field multiple vehicles for a vehicle heavy force. This allowed players to "spam" the most efficient choice. Given the way the detachment system worked in that one could always take more detachments (usually with just the tax of needing to take a character), it no longer worked to limit how many of any particular unit a player could take. Recognizing that some players didn't find it fun to play against an army composed only of the 1 best unit and some assorted HQs from an army, GW (re)introduced such limitations, though this time on how many of a given datasheet one could take. I seem to recall Chaos Wardogs and Ork Buggy lists being 2 lists that got moaned about a fair bit in this context, but I can't say to what extent these actually triggered this change. So, looked at historically, in my view the unit caps don't seem to be a change "required" by any particularly potent army composition, but instead arise from the tension between letting players play what they want to play (even if, or because, its overpowered) and the combination of wanting players to make armies compositions that matched what were presented as typical in the fluff and many players preferring to play against (or play, and not feel like they are being punished for doing so) more diverse and/or representative armies. I have a fair bit a sympathy for both sides on this, and feel that there is no "right" answer, just a balance- and to me, the "3 unit" limitation is a workable compromise.

Fixed - its your fault for having too many "a"s in your name, it threw me off.

VOTING IS NOW UP - GO VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE ENTRIES ASTARTES Imperium / Chaos / Xenos / Heresy I've unpinned this thread to reduce clutter, but will repin it for a week or so at the end of the event.

VOTING IS NOW UP - GO VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE ENTRIES IMPERIUM Astartes / Chaos / Xenos / Heresy I've unpinned this thread to reduce clutter, but will repin it for a week or so at the end of the event.

VOTING IS NOW UP - GO VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE ENTRIES CHAOS Astartes / Imperium / Xenos / Heresy I've unpinned this thread to reduce clutter, but will repin it for a week or so at the end of the event.

VOTING IS NOW UP - GO VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE ENTRIES XENOS Astartes / Imperium / Chaos / Heresy I've unpinned this thread to reduce clutter, but will repin it for a week or so at the end of the event.

VOTING IS NOW UP - GO VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE ENTRIES HERESY Astartes / Imperium / Chaos / Xenos I've unpinned this thread to reduce clutter, but will repin it for a week or so at the end of the event.

After a winnowing vote by the B&C moderators and administrators, the qualifiers have been selected and the time is finally here to VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE MODEL/UNIT FOR THE ASTARTES STRONGHOLD for Call to Arms 2026. Polling will close a the end of the day (midnight Pacific Coast time) on October 12, after which voting for Master Artificer and Master of the Forge will commence. Here are your choices, in alphabetical order by user name: 1. Black Templars successor Hellblasters - Brother Christopher (more photos) 2. Dark Angels Vindicator - crimsondave (more photos) 3. Raptors Captain - drakheart 4. Ultramarines bearded Roboute Guilliman - Halandaar 5. Imperial Fists Redemptor Dreadnought - kabaakaba

After a winnowing vote by the B&C moderators and administrators, the qualifiers have been selected and the time is finally here to VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE MODEL/UNIT FOR THE IMPERIUM STRONGHOLD for Call to Arms 2026. Polling will close a the end of the day (midnight Pacific Coast time) on October 12, after which voting for Master Artificer and Master of the Forge will commence. Here are your choices, in alphabetical order by user name: 1. Knights Armiger - bouargh (more photos) 2. Knight Destrier - drakheart 3. Mechanicus Iron Striders (conversion) - Dr.Clock (more photos) 4. Knight Lancer - Khulu 5. Astra Millitarum Infantry - _Saracen

After a winnowing vote by the B&C moderators and administrators, the qualifiers have been selected and the time is finally here to VOTE FOR YOUR FAVOURITE MODEL/UNIT FOR THE CHAOS STRONGHOLD for Call to Arms 2026. Polling will close a the end of the day (midnight Pacific Coast time) on October 12, after which voting for Master Artificer and Master of the Forge will commence. Here are your choices, in alphabetical order by user name: 1. Death Guard Typhus - Brother Argent 2. Heretic Astartes Vindicator - Dr_Ruminahui (more photos) 3. Night Lords Master of Executions - Lautrec the Embraced (more photos) 4. Traitor Guard Malcador - sitnam (more photos) 5. Night Lords Knight Despoiler - Valkia the Bloody (another photo) 6. Thousand Sons Ahriman - WBRBloom (another photo)