Gentlemanloser Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 That's not the case with Grey Kngihts though. Who after trianing are *all* 2A, Ld9, Marines, gifted a suit of TDA. (There is a case tobe made aobut the Techmarine, who is also 1A, Ld8, but agian I feel this is inconsistent with the fluff, even if he's sent to Mars. It's not stated *when* in a Grey Knights trianing a potential is sent to Mars, but I'd assume it was after the basic GK trianing had been completed. I'd have no issue with the stat line if the Techmarine was sent prior to the end of basic training, but I think that's *highly* unlikely). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Orlock Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 That's not the case with Grey Knights though. Who after trianing are *all* 2A, Ld9, Marines, gifted a suit of TDA. I assume you can provide a reference for this statement. Somewhere we have a clear and unambiguous, studio issued description of the training regime that explicitly mentions this. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 There is no initial training as a scout In short, from the moment a Grey Knight initiate's training is complete, and he is presented with the suit of Terminator Armour that will be his constant companion for the remainder of his life only here on Titan, can recruits be trained so completley He is to be counted amongst the mightiest of Space Marines and his abilities will only improve once he is tested in battle As described, the moment a Grey Knight becomes a Grey Knight, he is a Grey Knight Terminator. With the stats given for them. Including 2A and 9Ld. This shouldn't be in question. After this, a Grey Knight can move in diferent directions, Being Promoted to Purgation Squad, beocming a Purifier, or choosing the maneuorability of a Strike Squad. Even learning to pilot the fearsome Dreadknight. But all this comes *after* thier initial training, and gifting of a suit of TDA and a Nemesis Force Weaon of choice. So the new fluff states. As an aside, apart from a Strike Squad with Personal Teleporters (who are given a reason to use PA - TDA doesn't work with the PT), why on earth would any other Grey Knight choose to give up thier TDA for PA? Why do Purgation Squads (Especially as the TDA will help them in thier mission statement of mobile firepower, keeping up with the assault), Strike Squads without PTs and Purifiers trade down into PA? There is no reason given. We all know it's for game balance and maybe variety, but ther'es no explaination for this. It's a flaw with the fluff and new chapter design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inache Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Purgation squads focus on ranged combat rather than close combat. Their reduced leadership and attacks are due to their increased focus on ranged attacks leaving them slightly more vulnerable than other Grey Knights due to their extreme focus at any given time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 So they get worse, for no incease in BS. That's rubbish. Fluff and mechanically... Inexcusable really. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Eddie Orlock Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 Well, it's good to see the statements, that wasn't what I was looking for in my last post. <_< Unless you're intending to cite an unlawfully obtained document which I'd view as indamissable to the argument firstly on the ethical grounds, but mostly on the idea that as a draft it might have changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 4, 2011 Share Posted March 4, 2011 I thought this thread was about discussion on the fluff of the new Dex, and the leaked Codex is so far the only information we have to reference. All the discussion in this thread, the hate over Draigo, etc, is based on it. Discount that, and you might as well not bother reading this thread at all, really. /shrug Sure, it can all change, for example Purgation Squads GK are listed in one section as having 2A, in another as 1A. So something's will be tidied up. But until we know, we work we what information we can glean. And as it stands, the fluff is inconistent with itself. I hope it *is* changed for the actual realease... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinoDoc Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Can anyone confirm or deny this post from Warseer: To the OP: You do realise that the publishing date on THAT 'codex' is listed in the document properties as 2009, making it likely to be one of the PRE-launch revisions by GW. There is a story that GW marketing didn't like the direction Matt Ward's codex was going, so they took it off him and re-did it. They then asked MW to write a battle report with 'his' codex (sorry, if it was a film, it would now be "Alan Smithee's" codex) and he told them to get the work experience chap who 'finished' it (rewrote it). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 wait . but GK do not have tech marines , at least not in the rules and not in the fluff in the codex . Did FW ever did GK techmarines? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dilgar Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Can anyone confirm or deny this post from Warseer: To the OP: You do realise that the publishing date on THAT 'codex' is listed in the document properties as 2009, making it likely to be one of the PRE-launch revisions by GW. There is a story that GW marketing didn't like the direction Matt Ward's codex was going, so they took it off him and re-did it. They then asked MW to write a battle report with 'his' codex (sorry, if it was a film, it would now be "Alan Smithee's" codex) and he told them to get the work experience chap who 'finished' it (rewrote it). Some also wrote that he showed this to someone in working for GW and the guy said it is "pretty accurate". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexHolker Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Can anyone confirm or deny this post from Warseer: To the OP: You do realise that the publishing date on THAT 'codex' is listed in the document properties as 2009, making it likely to be one of the PRE-launch revisions by GW. When I open it in Foxit Reader, the document properties says the PDF was created on the 10th of January this year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordsloth Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 When I open it in Foxit Reader, the document properties says the PDF was created on the 10th of January this year. The pdf yes, but doesnt mean the document it was scanned from couldnt be months older. I'm not saying it is, i have no idea where that rumour came from, but we cant really deduce much by the pdf creation date. (other than that at that point it definitely already existed, I guess :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexHolker Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 When I open it in Foxit Reader, the document properties says the PDF was created on the 10th of January this year. The pdf yes, but doesnt mean the document it was scanned from couldnt be months older. I'm not saying it is, i have no idea where that rumour came from, but we cant really deduce much by the pdf creation date. (other than that at that point it definitely already existed, I guess :) It is true the physical document it was scanned from might be much older, but that's not what you asked, or what Chromedog claimed. Unless someone posts actual evidence that the codex is older than that, I see no reason to believe them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lordsloth Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 It is true the physical document it was scanned from might be much older, but that's not what you asked, or what Chromedog claimed. Unless someone posts actual evidence that the codex is older than that, I see no reason to believe them. I dont remember asking anything, but ok :) You are absolutely right that, as far as I know, there is no evidence that the document is older than the pdf date. I'd never dare deny that. Course, theres no evidence of the opposite either, so we just don't know and I see no reason to believe either :) I would like it to be older though, only for having an increased chance that a lot of stuff would have been changed. But that's just because I'm in the camp that really doesn't like the direction the fluff would be going :( Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 wait . but GK do not have tech marines , at least not in the rules and not in the fluff in the codex . Did FW ever did GK techmarines? Leaked PDF has GK Techmarines. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the jeske Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 yeah but the codex doesnt . just like psycanons are str 7 rending and hvy 4 . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 I don't understand. This thread is about the fluff form the leaked PDF, which is the closest information we have aobut the new 'dex. Techmairnes are in it. :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinoDoc Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 Can anyone confirm or deny this post from Warseer: To the OP: You do realise that the publishing date on THAT 'codex' is listed in the document properties as 2009, making it likely to be one of the PRE-launch revisions by GW. There is a story that GW marketing didn't like the direction Matt Ward's codex was going, so they took it off him and re-did it. They then asked MW to write a battle report with 'his' codex (sorry, if it was a film, it would now be "Alan Smithee's" codex) and he told them to get the work experience chap who 'finished' it (rewrote it). Some also wrote that he showed this to someone in working for GW and the guy said it is "pretty accurate". I wasn't referring to the rules as such but rather to the possibility fluff might have been changed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Oiad Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 So much disinformation/hysteria floating about and best of all no one will care within a month. At this rate it would be much more fun(ny) if this info has been shaken up compared to the final print. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Valerian Posted March 6, 2011 Share Posted March 6, 2011 yeah but the codex doesnt . just like psycanons are str 7 rending and hvy 4 . Jeske confuses the hell out of me sometimes. We know the leaked PDF has techmarines; we know the 3rd Edition codex does not. Are you trying to say that you've seen the 5th Edition codex, and that the techmarine isn't in it? Or, are you just referring to the old dex? V Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhallenFoenix Posted March 7, 2011 Share Posted March 7, 2011 On the Draigo fiasco - After reading all the fervor, I had to find the codex and read it myself. It seems to me that everyone is overreacting. Not only does it not say that Draigo banished Mortarion alone, it doesn't even state that he was part of the group that did it. Granted, as the heir apparent to the throne of Supreme GM, and with the actual Supreme GM in the fight, we can certainly assume he was one of the people fighting Mortarion, I would assume it was him and a great many others. More to the point, the inference I draw from him carving his predecessors name into mortarion's heart is that it was done after the fight, inscribing the name of his (probable) personal idol to mark a grave for the fallen soldier. Mortarion had already been banished, and he was carving the name into his rotting body.\ Just my .02 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justcar Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 The topic seems to be dormant, so i'll (against my better judgement) through in a tidbit that you should all hate! In the new Dex GKs kill sisters of battle to use their innocent blood to make a talisman that would protect them from the bloodtide. Let the screaming begin! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Inache Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 Their sacrifice for our God-Emperor's Imperium shall be remembered. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
AlexHolker Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 In the new Dex GKs kill sisters of battle to use their innocent blood to make a talisman that would protect them from the bloodtide. Let the screaming begin! Can someone please provide independant verification of this fact? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Justcar Posted March 11, 2011 Share Posted March 11, 2011 In the new Dex GKs kill sisters of battle to use their innocent blood to make a talisman that would protect them from the bloodtide. Let the screaming begin! Can someone please provide independant verification of this fact? My local store got the black box today. So I read it from the codex itself :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.