The Battle Barn

A gaming club based out of Grand Rapids MI, The Battle Barn hosts weekly gaming nights where a multitude of different games can be tried. No matter the game system you're interested in, come check us out and satisfy your gaming needs.
It is currently Tue May 22, 2012 7:06 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]



Welcome
Welcome to The Battle Barn forums!

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest, which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community, you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free, so please, join our community today!

Upon registering, take a look at the New Applicants board. It will give you instructions on sending an email to the admin to confirm that your registration is not a bot.




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 
Author Message
 Post subject: Things I would have liked to see in the GK Codex
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 11:09 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:13 pm
Posts: 792
I have been playing Daemonhunters for a while now and while I appreciate the new codex ther are a few things I think would have made more sense from a fluff perspective.

Basically I hate seeing GKs as just "more marines" because that's not how they used to be.

No Razorbacks.
Rhinos only for Inquisitional forces...such vehicles are beneath GKs and wouldn't be theri mode of transport into battle
Shrouding maintained as secondary psychic power in addition to astral aim for purgators...grants night fighting rules.
Dreads only Elites...only venerable...makes sense...and forces you to choose between them and purifiers and paladins...unless certain HQs are taken
WS 5...very important...I never even considered I'd lose this...there is no grounds for WS 4 GKs
GK Brother Captain closer to 100pts
Dedicated StormRavens...GK only
Dedicated Land Raiders...GK only
AP 6 on Psylencers
Psylencers ignore Invulnerable saves but don't wound daemons on a 4+
Jokaero Weaponsmith turned into "Techpriest" using same rule set but different fluff (This is how I counts-as without using d*** dirty apes)
Stern gets Grand Strategy...Stern is a man with Grand Master status that refuses to take the title.
While I think allies could have worked as a one way street of certain templar and guard units into GKs its not worth trying with changing codecies.(Not as need with Inquisitional forces now present)
Justicars can still take Artificer Armor. These are honoured leaders and would get access to better materials..also makes you think twice about investing in it due to perils
Servitors take up heavy slot...no mindlock if techmarine or inquisitor is with them...reduced mindlock if techpriest has been bought for them.
Daemonhost beefed up with increase in points...you only take them as a squad by themselves anyways and making them bigger ad scarier increases their usage when wanted

What I am trying to accomplish is the way GKs play...from a fluff perspective you would never see a single GK ever...much less a squad or army of them...and if you see an army of them...you're probably a daemon in the eye of terror. Not that this can really be achieved in game play but they should feel more elitest than your standard marine flavor.

Tell me your thoughts...let's not get too involved because things are as they are...I just believe a few tweaks should have been made and hindsight is helping to see how we could have avoided certain really annoying and bland netlisting for GKs

_________________
"Innocence proves nothing."


Last edited by ductvader on Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:53 am, edited 1 time in total.

Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: Re: Things I would have liked to see in the GK Codex
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 1:28 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:32 pm
Posts: 716
I'm a little confused by what you're asking here. You want to discuss how the rules don't accurately reflect the fluff? Well in reality, really no codex does. If the Marine codex was accurate to the fluff, then armies would consist of about 10-20 marines, and they'd almost never die, all the while killing hundreds of orks, or a whole eldar warhost with Eldrad and an avatar, etc... Imperial guard armies would consist of thousands of men, with hundreds dying each turn as they slowly plod across the field.

Every codex has crazy fluff written about it, since it's safe to assume that we all enjoy reading about such acts. They make for great fiction and help you get more involved in the story. Accurately applying such fiction to a miniature game just doesn't seem possible. It would make for some very one-sided games, and probably not a whole lot of fun for either player involved.

_________________
Draigo's Law: As a thread increases in length, the probability that someone will hate Draigo and/or Matt Ward approaches 1.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Things I would have liked to see in the GK Codex
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:07 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:13 pm
Posts: 792
That's not at all what I am saying...

Just would have been nice to keep GKs more true to their nature than the current meta is showing them.

For instance...GKs are the Terminator army. Terminators are normal troops for GKs and their strike squads are closer to scouts.

It would have simply been nice to maintain the GK flavor instead of blending it into MEQ...because it wasn't MEQ before.

_________________
"Innocence proves nothing."


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Things I would have liked to see in the GK Codex
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 2:20 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 6:32 pm
Posts: 716
How were they not MEQ? The exact definition of MEQ stands for 'Marine Equivalent' Str 4, Tough 4, 3+ armor save. That's what they had. That's exactly what MEQ is.

So obviously I misunderstood your original question. Are you just mad that this new codex is different from the old one? I can understand that certainly, but you can certainly still have the same flavor of GK as you did originally. There's nothing stopping you from making almost the exact same kind of list that you did before the new codex came out. A couple strike squads in land raiders, some terminators dropping in, maybe throw an assassin out here and there. There you go, almost exactly like it was before. Sure some wargear and abilities have changed, but it'd still be quite similar.

_________________
Draigo's Law: As a thread increases in length, the probability that someone will hate Draigo and/or Matt Ward approaches 1.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Things I would have liked to see in the GK Codex
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 3:03 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:13 pm
Posts: 792
Arander wrote:
How were they not MEQ? The exact definition of MEQ stands for 'Marine Equivalent' Str 4, Tough 4, 3+ armor save. That's what they had. That's exactly what MEQ is.


Probably because the meta for Daemonhunters didn't have power armor in it...with the exception of Water Warrior Land Raider tactica.

You keep missing the point.

I am not talking about how I set up my personal list.

Daemonhunters should have retained a few things when the book carried over. Inability to get rhinos. WS 5. Ranged Defense. Ignoring invulnerables.

Now how I changed the way the codex is set up maintains this playstyle while retaining what it is to be a Grey Knight. You probably don't understand because you didn't play them as your army before the change.

It's like if the DE codex took out Raiders or if Space wolves could teleport in...the codex just changed the style of play in too massive a way. Made them play like MEQs when they shouldn't play like MEQ.

The one thing they did correctly with GKs was keep them at 24" range...heavily maintains the old feel of them. The real issue is taking the brutal force of GK models and spreading that into armored units. The Stormraven actually represents this fairly well...with low missile strength the birds serve as a great transportation system for GKs while not being as big a gunboat as the BA version.

If future MEQ codecies get the Storm Raven I will be perturbed but not surprised. If the stormraven started with the GKs and they let it go to the BA...one of their least favorite chapters...I can bet Ultramarines will get it too.

There is a lot of good thinking and expanding in this book...but certain things needed to be restricted or opened up.

_________________
"Innocence proves nothing."


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Things I would have liked to see in the GK Codex
PostPosted: Thu Oct 20, 2011 6:02 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 8:09 pm
Posts: 425
So I think I may be missing your point here too.

Your very first statement is that you
Quote:
hate seeing GKs as just "more marines" because that's not how they used to be


But quite frankly, aside from their statline and newfound ability to take transports, they aren't anything like other marines. Storm Bolters (especially when you take psy-ammo) are quite different than bolters. Force Weapons are drastically different than well, punching people?!? An entire army having psychic abilities is different than anything else out there!

Loss of WS5 is somewhat dissapointing, I'll admit, but game balance needs to be considered and when combined with their other abilities and wargear, WS5 would be unbelievably broken! Hitting other MEQ's on 3's, with hammerhand you wound them on 3's you allow no saves, it's just too much.

Quote:
What I am trying to accomplish is the way GKs play...from a fluff perspective you would never see a single GK ever...much less a squad or army of them...and if you see an army of them...you're probably a daemon in the eye of terror.


I really don't get this. If you tried to make it so they would never be seen except in the eye of terror then there would be no need for a codex, just a fluff blurb.

And finally as far as the bland netlisting goes, I'm just not really seeing it. I'm all over the web and everyone out there seems to have a different take on the codex. From Draigo-wing Paladin armies (and I've seen several different takes on it!) to Crowe purifier lists, Coteaz henchmen lists. I've seen terminator spam lists too. In fact about the only thing I really haven't seen is the 'bland' MSU, MEQ razorspam lists you seem to be lamenting.

It's true that it's different than it was, but if it wasn't there would've been no reason to re-write it.

_________________
"The wind whipping across your face as your blades whip across the throats of the foe. It makes the blood sing." Hyrthar Dreamweave, Wild Rider

http://thewildriderhost.blogspot.com/


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Things I would have liked to see in the GK Codex
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 6:58 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:13 pm
Posts: 792
ericbtjr wrote:
Loss of WS5 is somewhat dissapointing, I'll admit, but game balance needs to be considered and when combined with their other abilities and wargear, WS5 would be unbelievably broken! Hitting other MEQ's on 3's, with hammerhand you wound them on 3's you allow no saves, it's just too much.


Well if there was WS 5 there would be no Hammerhand...there is also no grounds for Hammerhand on each squad...most GK psykers can't direct their powers as such...much less an entire squad! GKs tend to work as a squad releasing very brutal force from the Justicar or Brother Captain with them. Only highly skilled psykers could achieve more delicate feats. This is why Holocaust was the only psychic power GKs used to have in a squad. I also don't believe they should have force weapons...you might be able to get away with power weapons but force weapons is a bit much for the average GK psyker. Old Nemesis rules had a bit more of an edge in this explanation as well.

_________________
"Innocence proves nothing."


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Things I would have liked to see in the GK Codex
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 7:05 am 
Online
User avatar

Joined: Sun Feb 14, 2010 3:02 pm
Posts: 559
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Just be happy they didn't get turned into a 4th edition codex in 5th edition like another certain "hunters" army.

_________________
Infantry leads the way.


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Things I would have liked to see in the GK Codex
PostPosted: Fri Oct 21, 2011 9:00 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sat Feb 13, 2010 7:13 pm
Posts: 792
Very true Dale.

I don't really care for power weapons that much on my normal troops...they don't help all too much. In fact...GKs are slightly worse in combat than they used to be.

Old Daemonhunters kill 5.92 MEQ on the charge.
New Grey Knights kill 6 MEQ on the charge.

Old Daemonhunters kill 5.92 MEQ when charged.
New Grey Knights kill 3 MEQ when charged.

What this is not accounting for is FnP for T4+ models. Or newly gained force weapons...which I believe is also unecessary.

The trick to old GKs was getting them to combat...if you were smart enough to be able to do that you were golden. Hit on 3s...wound on 2s...done.

I don't intend to incite argument...just enjoy the flavor of the old book more...there were ways they cold have kept the elite of the elite feel in the book...besides the bank grenadinators.

_________________
"Innocence proves nothing."


Report this post
Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 9 posts ] 

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
suspicion-preferred