Brother Tyler

Several units I recommend looking at are: Adeptus Arbites Exaction Squad (Imperial Agents/Kill Team) Aeldari Rangers (Aeldari) Attilan Rough Riders (Astra Militarum) Catachan Jungle Fighters (Astra Militarum) Death Korps of Krieg (Astra Militarum) Serberys Sulphurhounds/Raiders (Adeptus Mechanicus) Skitarii Rangers (Adeptus Mechanicus) It looks like you're combining concepts derived from these units (and others). I think you may find the Exaction Squad to provide you with a solid basis for what you're trying to do. You'll find the Warhammer 40,000 rules for them in Codex: Imperial Agents and you can download the Kill Team rules for them for free from the Warhammer Community website. If you don't have loads of disposable cash and don't want to purchase codices just to reference rules, I recommend just downloading the Kill Team rules to get a feel for how they play. To be honest, if you're still learning the game, you should probably hold off on creating custom units. Developing rules is a lot more complex than it seems, especially in a game that as complex as Warhammer 40,000. There are a number of factors that need to be balanced and it's difficult to do this unless you have a strong understanding for how the game is played and how the special rules you build into a unit impact game play. Once you've developed strong proficiency in the game, then you can turn to creating custom units. In the meantime, you might consider proxying things.

Ah, the old "free speech" argument. Too often, people use that argument when they don't understand what the protections for free speech actually are and how they are applied. Occasionally, the people who use that argument do understand those protections and applications, but they still make the argument because either (a) they just want to talk about what they want to talk about whether or not it is allowed/appropriate and without consideration for the consequences, or (b) they specifically desire to create disruption, whether out of simple nihilistic enjoyment or for more nefarious purposes. Regardless, those who understand the limitations on free speech and who still throw the argument out are using it to deceive those who are ignorant that their activity is righteousness and/or they are attempting to cow others into submission through a deceptive, but false, appeal to principle. I'm going to give those who wish to invoke the free speech argument the benefit of the doubt and assume ignorance. A simple Internet search on the meaning of free speech will yield a wealth of information from people and organizations with far more credibility than me; and a brief review of the information they provide will be enlightening, clearly demonstrating how the free speech argument is patently incorrect in this setting. It's important to note, of course, that I'm referring to free speech protection under the Constitution of the United States of America, where I and a significant percentage of B&C community members live. Other nations have their own laws about free speech. Some of those nations are comparable to the U.S.A. in their protection of free speech, some might even offer more protection (I'm not an expert in this, so I don't know for certain), and many are more restrictive. The Bolter and Chainsword is a private community that exists for the purposes stated in our mission statement, which appears in the community rules and also as one of our rotating site banners. Just in case it isn't the banner that is currently appearing at the top of the site for you, here it is: That statement provides the basic scope of content that is shared here. It is descriptive rather than prescriptive, and the exclusions identified in the community rules are similarly descriptive. In general, we try to allow as much as possible, especially when subjects can be plausibly argued as relating to the hobby (i.e., supported by our mission statement). Some issues, while potentially problematic, also have the potential to be discussed constructively, and we usually try to let these go as long as possible. Diverse viewpoints are allowed and encouraged (and inevitable). All too often, however, while some members might be able to remain within the realm of constructive discussion on such issues, too many other members pull the discussion into the realm of disruption. Once things become too disruptive, we (the staff) intervene to steer the community back into the realm of constructive discussion as much as possible. Often, this involves removing disruptive content and notifying members that further disruptive content will similarly be removed and/or result in topic closure/disciplinary action. Off-topic content isn't allowed here, plain and simple. This is neither censorship nor an attack on free speech. It is moderating the community and adhering to our mission statement. Politics have been explicitly prohibited here since at least as early as early 2000 when I became a moderator, and I'm fairly sure (though not absolutely certain) that politics were explicitly prohibited when I joined the site in late 1999. Since the site was founded in April 1999, there may have been a period of time when politics weren't explicitly prohibited, but the people who might remember that time are few and far between (the most likely are @BLOODSAINT, the site's founder, and @Kurgan the Lurker). Politics has been one example of prohibited off-topic subject matter in our community rules for over two decades. What happened a little over a year ago was that we clarified what we meant by "politics" by rephrasing it as "social/sociopolitical issues." I could say a lot more on the issue, but I already provided a pretty lengthy explanation here. Yes, our enforcement of this rule has evolved over the years. It might be more accurate to say that we've had to make adjustments based on the evolution of the Bolter and Chainsword community as well as broader society. The culture of the hobby community and this subset, the Bolter and Chainsword community, has evolved over the years (and this is a good thing). Or perhaps "matured" is a better word. There were things that were tolerated a couple of decades ago because they weren't [perceived] as disruptive, but as society has changed and as the community has grown, there is less tolerance for some of those things. There is also the human factor of the staff - different staff members have different viewpoints on things and one might be more tolerant of some issues than others. We endeavor to get as much consensus as possible, but it is inevitable that aspects of personality will creep in. This is especially true in cases where an issue doesn't appear to create disruption, in which case it may be allowed to continue (until it crosses the line). And we make errors, too, so there may have been things that were allowed in the past but which we should have dealt with (and things which we dealt with but which we may have allowed to continue). Having cleared up those two inaccuracies, it's time to discuss this topic. This topic will not be reopened, nor will there be a similar replacement. This isn't to say that we don't want to see reviews of GW fiction. We most emphatically do want to see that kind of content as they are extremely helpful to the members of the community. Having all reviews for all fiction in a single topic, however, is a terrible use of the site's capabilities, turning a discussion topic into something resembling a Reddit channel or a Discord channel, severely hampering findability of information. The only real benefit of a single all-encompassing topic is that members don't have to go to the effort of creating new topics when they want to post reviews (i.e., supporting laziness). A book might be reviewed on one page with a short discussion about the review/book, and then another review on the same book (with resulting discussion) might take place many pages later, with various other pieces of fiction and mini-discussions taking place in between. In order to find any review, members have to either perform a search or manually read through the entire discussion, and they won't even know if there are any reviews for a specific piece of fiction beforehand, potentially wasting considerable time in the effort. This whole forum is intended for the purpose of providing a place for members to review the fiction. We just need to create some structure that takes advantage of the software's capabilities. What I see replacing this discussion is an index of all WH40K fiction and videos. That index might have a variety of listings, allowing all works by the same author to be found in one post, all works on the same Chapter in another post, all works about an event (e.g., the Horus Heresy) in another post, etc. The index would probably start with an alphabetized listing (e.g., all books/stories/videos starting with "A" in one post, all books/stories/videos starting with "B" in another, etc.). The same information would then be presented in different forms in subsequent posts, allowing for listings of works by authors, events, organizations, etc. For example, the story Headhunted by Steve Parker is about a Deathwatch kill team. The story was published in multiple anthologies, including: Heroes of the Space Marines Deathwatch: Xenos Hunters Deathwatch: The Omnibus Nexus + Other Stories The Deathwatch kill team in the story, Kill Team Talon, includes Space Marines from the Death Spectres, Exorcists, Ultramarines, Imperial Fists, and Raven Guard Chapters. Orks are also featured in the story (because the Deathwatch have to kill someone). So Headhunted would be included in the alphabetical list, along with each of the anthologies. Headhunted would also be listed in the listing of works by Steve Parker, as well as in the listings for the Deathwatch and the Orks. We might even consider including Headhunted in the listings for each of the Chapters from which the kill team's members hail. Each instance of a Headhunted entry would have a link to any topic(s) in which the work is reviewed. When Black Library publishes a new work or when Warhammer+ publishes a new video, the work will be added to the index. It is likely that updates would be necessary as more information becomes available, especially in cases where a work is teased but full details aren't given on the front end. When a member creates a review of a work, they can either create a new topic (the topic title should be the title of the work, with "Review" appended) or they can add the review to an existing topic in which the work is reviewed (this may be a matter that we discuss/decide upon as a community - I imagine there will be varying preferences). Regardless, the creation of any review topic will also require that the member post a reply in the index so that the link to the review can be added. The Tabula Astartes provides an example of this type of index, though this index would have to be structured somewhat differently. This type of index takes a lot of work, but it's far more useful than having a single all-encompassing topic for reviews. The index would provide a comprehensive listing of works and authors, and we might even link them to the Black Library site to facilitate purchase. The presence or absence of links would be immediately recognized rather than having to search through a single all-encompassing topic. It really takes administrator/moderator permissions to build and maintain this kind of thing, but it depends upon member participation. I'll begin building the index in my workroom. I'll create a topic in which the members can help me by providing suggestions for the organization of the index. The online wikis provide considerable information on the various works, so I'll lean on those for the build; and we'll probably include links to them, too, so that members can see information on each work (especially useful for those cases where the Black Library website no longer includes information). What we may do in the future is go through this topic and split all of the reviews into separate topics, possibly merging all reviews about the same work into the same topic if that's the community's preferred structure. That won't occur until after we get this index built, however, if at all. After all, there are 72 pages of reviews and discussion in this topic, and this forum has 56 pages of topics. So if we end up doing that, I'll probably create a temporary forum that each of these new review topics will be moved into so we don't have to search through 56 pages of topics to find them, then we'll move them back into this forum after we add the links to the index.

Note that I split the posts that weren't about the icon out to a separate discussion. Just keep in mind that at 28x28 pixels, you're not going to get a lot of detail in the image. If you include any dice, the more sides on the die/dice, the more difficult it will be to make out what they are.

You may (or may not) have noticed that we have added a direct link to this club from the + PBP Games + subforum. The forum icon, circled in goldenrod, normally indicates that a member has new unread posts in a forum. With clubs (and other redirects, such as to a blog category or an album category), the icon doesn't work the same way. With the forums, the icon doesn't appear or is faded if there are no new unread posts in that forum. With the other features (i.e., the redirects), the image always appears in its full brightness. This is the reason for the redirects having special icons: With the Nook now having a redirect icon from the Forums, we have two options: Since the Nook is a club, we could use the normal Clubs redirect icon, or The members of the Nook can create a custom redirect icon I have a feeling I know which option y'all want to go with, but I don't want to be presumptuous. If you're fine with the standard icon, easy peasy - I'll make that the icon post haste. If you'd prefer to create a custom icon, there are some requirements/limitations: The image must be 48 pixels wide by 28 pixels high. The actual icon should be no larger than 28 pixels wide by 28 pixels high, centered in the 48x28 area. The icon must work with both the dark and light themes (i.e., there must be contrast). The image must be a .gif with a transparent background. I'm happy to assist with the creation of the icon, including taking your suggestions and coming up with a suitable image that meets your description. I'll give y'all some time to discuss and come to a consensus.

It seems we need a time out.

There was a slew of posts that started delving into political discussion. Rather than edit out the political portions (a few had non-political comments), I hid them all since I don't have time for more right now. Later this weekend (late Sunday) or early next week, I may go in and edit out the political portions from those posts that have non-political content.

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.