Kurasuke Posted April 14, 2009 Share Posted April 14, 2009 I like Crusader's Strike. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintner Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 At the moment when I work with the formating of the text for the .pdf I have put in 'Prise de Fer' as 'killing blow' substitute ... I like the Crusader's Strike. But question is if it shouldn't be something like 'Emperors Wrath' '... attempt to execute a 'Emperors Wrath' attack.' something that relate to the Emperor's Champion more personally ... all the BTs are crusaiders in a sence ... 'Strike of Faith' '... attempt to execute the 'Strike of Faith' attack.' well, my ideas ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Chaplain Ryld Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Right just converted the word doc to a pdf. Its just a straight and quick conversion. Hosted http://www.savefile.com/files/2077368 Hopefully that should solve some problems. Still the same garbled text. Used Firefox this time. No matter, I have a no frills version printed, so will stick with that for now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zomro Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Got a chance to look through this, and I really do like it. Great stuff. One question though: Do Reclusiarchs get Litanies of Hate (or Battle)? I don't see that special rule listed for Reclusiarchs, though I do see the regular Chaplains get it, since you have it listed as "same as Codex: SM, but with these changes". Forgive me if it's there and I just didn't see it, but I wanted to see if that was maybe an oversight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintner Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Got a chance to look through this, and I really do like it. Great stuff. One question though: Do Reclusiarchs get Litanies of Hate (or Battle)? I don't see that special rule listed for Reclusiarchs, though I do see the regular Chaplains get it, since you have it listed as "same as Codex: SM, but with these changes". Forgive me if it's there and I just didn't see it, but I wanted to see if that was maybe an oversight. Might be that this have been excluded from the Reclusiarchas as we now a days we got re-rolls if we pick the vow 'accept any challange' (prefered enemny against everyone)... And with that render it 'useless' but it would still be usefull if you don't pick that vow so. it do list all the other things from the BT chaplain except that one as it seem excluded. both from the BT and from the C:SM ... will have to wait til Sigismund Himself turn up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigismund Himself Posted April 15, 2009 Author Share Posted April 15, 2009 Good catch, Zomro, it's meant to be in there. Put on the list of things to fix in the next update. Plasmabomb- the PDF doesn't work for me either, unfortunately. The name for the EC attack is still up in the air, some good points made. I'll think about it and change it in the next update. Good to see you around Mordekiem, any more thoughts on the codex as it stands? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Richthofen Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 I think we should call a spade a spade - giving the Champ a single attack that is meant to kill an enemy outright should be called a 'death blow' or a 'killing strike' or something... trying to "templar it up" by giving it a Crusady-sounding name is just putting lipstick on a pig... :lol: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mordekiem Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 I think we should call a spade a spade - giving the Champ a single attack that is meant to kill an enemy outright should be called a 'death blow' or a 'killing strike' or something... trying to "templar it up" by giving it a Crusady-sounding name is just putting lipstick on a pig... :( Isn't that the point of creating unique armies and fluff? ;) Otherwise why do we have Marshall's and Castellan instead of Masters and Captains? The whole game is based around putting lipstick on a pig. Otherwise we'd be playing checkers. :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintner Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 The whole game is based around putting lipstick on a pig. Otherwise we'd be playing checkers. :P I have to agree with you there ... Marines with lipstick ... that's something for my nightmares ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
okg02 Posted April 15, 2009 Share Posted April 15, 2009 Execute I know it's from WoW too, but i think it sums it up pretty well. okg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I forbid putting lipstick on Templars. Have you no shame?!?!?! :blink: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlasmaBomb Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 Right just converted the word doc to a pdf. Its just a straight and quick conversion. Hosted http://www.savefile.com/files/2077368 Hopefully that should solve some problems. Still the same garbled text. Used Firefox this time. No matter, I have a no frills version printed, so will stick with that for now. I don't know what is wrong... just tried in work to see if it works on a different computer and both the .doc and .pdf look ok. *Puzzled* Helping paintner with his pdf now :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlasmaBomb Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I forbid putting lipstick on Templars. Have you no shame?!?!?! :) I request that my lipstick be attached to a svelte sister... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintner Posted April 16, 2009 Share Posted April 16, 2009 I don't know what is wrong... just tried in work to see if it works on a different computer and both the .doc and .pdf look ok. *Puzzled* Helping paintner with his pdf now :) Maybe some error when it gets downloaded? Yep, keep helping me now =) HQ section soon finished =) haha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Chaplain Ryld Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 I had a game today with ++Codex: Fire, Steel and Zeal++. My opponent, my ally and myself were very happy with the codex. We played 2000 + 2000 (me and my ally) Vs 4000 points of Chaos. The game ended in a draw. I took a land Raider heavy list (2 LRC's and a LR), and it worked ok. We all felt the codex was balanced, and I have been given the nod to use it as often as I wish. One thing that did come up was I had assault termies locked in assault with a squad of possessed. They then got charged by bezerkers. Does the Accept Vow allow me to reroll the missed hits against the squad of Bezerkers as they are fresh enemy, or just rolling regularly in any subsequent rounds of combat? At the risk of sounding like a mini batrep. :D (mods, please delete if inappropriate) My list: Marshall and Twin Lightning claws and melta bombs EC with the Accept Vow. He took care of the 3rd and last chaos lord, and finished the game unwounded. 10 Initiates with power fist and flamer 4 neophytes, 2 with bp and ccw, 2 with shot guns (which rocked btw) LRC with Multi Melta 7 TDA Sword Brethren, 4 with lightning claws and 3 with thunder hammers inside a LRC. These guys stole the show. They accounted for a squad of noise marines, a squad of possessed, a squad of bezerkers and two lords. A defiler ate their LRC in the last turn. 10 Initiatess with a power fist and a melta gun in a LR 10 Initiates in a Rhino with a power fist and a flamer Needless to say my deployment was very quick. So to recap, very happy with the codex. Just rolling for Accept in the first round was very hard however. Especially with a power fist initiate with one attack. :) . Very hard to kill stuff. It may make me rethink power weapons. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bloodied_fist Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 Am loving what I am reading so far.... Does the EC take up a FoC slot in this though? Anyways, i think I will bring this up in my group, I shouldn't have any problems using it.... Very good work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PlasmaBomb Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 The EC does not take up a FOC slot and can be your only HQ in Codex:Fire, Steel and Zeal (as per Codex:Templars) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintner Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 One thing that did come up was I had assault termies locked in assault with a squad of possessed. They then got charged by bezerkers. Does the Accept Vow allow me to reroll the missed hits against the squad of Bezerkers as they are fresh enemy, or just rolling regularly in any subsequent rounds of combat? doesn't the Vow always give the re-roll ... in close combat that is. when you charge, when you get charged etc. so yes, even against those you would have it, and even in turn 2 or 3 in CC with them you would have the re-rolls. and if they were CC Termies with Claws ... re-roll on wound as well ... goodie! =) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marshal Rohr Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 In relation to C:F,S,Z not C:BT Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintner Posted April 18, 2009 Share Posted April 18, 2009 In relation to C:F,S,Z not C:BT GW BT dexed EC don't take up a slot either ... or what did you meen? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brother Chaplain Ryld Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 In relation to C:F,S,Z not C:BT GW BT dexed EC don't take up a slot either ... or what did you meen? In the ++Codex: Fire, Steel and Zeal++ it states that the AACMNtO Vow gives all marines with the ATSKNF special rule Preferred Enemy the first time they are involved in an assault for that round only. I take that to mean their first round against an enemy unit. But does that include subsequent units? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sigismund Himself Posted April 19, 2009 Author Share Posted April 19, 2009 Thanks for the playtest Ryld :rolleyes: Now you've lured them into a false sense of security, you can unleash a Biker Army of Doom with Varrikan led terminators and the super Land Raider Crusader :) In the ++Codex: Fire, Steel and Zeal++ it states that the AACMNtO Vow gives all marines with the ATSKNF special rule Preferred Enemy the first time they are involved in an assault for that round only. I take that to mean their first round against an enemy unit. But does that include subsequent units? It's meant to be just for that unit. So the first turn a BT unit enters CC, it gets the benefit. Any other assaults, it doesn't gain that benefit. That way, hopefully the vow is slightly less of a no brainer with the reduced effects and higher cost in relation to other vows. The EC does not take up a FOC slot and can be your only HQ in Codex:Fire, Steel and Zeal. This is correct, as per the last GW FAQ. I'll spell this out clearer in the next update. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintner Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 I don't like the fact that the Vow changes ... Or rather that we change the Preferred Enemy core rule ... The core rule states that you get a re-roll in close combat ... and that is all close combat all the time not just on assault. It's a bit far to change a core rule like that in my opinion. We loose the edge in close combat that way that we never really had in 5th due to the 1" rule Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Von Richthofen Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 I agree with making AAC less of an automatic choice, but I'm not sure if giving it to them on the first round of assault is the solution... I almost think dropping preferred enemy and going 'back' to the 'Always hit on a 3+' might be a decent alternative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paintner Posted April 19, 2009 Share Posted April 19, 2009 the re-roll is a nice thing for us. and i think it should stay. I rather have it then hit on 3+ ... and we do pay for it with the vow. but it's a no brainer most of the time. I don't know how balanced it is in this coded to have. but no one I know have complained about the BT codex when I played and that I get a re-roll. and GW thought it were an OK thing to give us for some reason so ... the matter need some thought =) one thing is to make the other vows better in some way as that would not interfere with the core rulings. or make more of them ... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.