Jump to content

im i a grizzled old GK Vet?


Deamon Wolf

Recommended Posts

I embrace and enjoy the new rules, amkes my army competitive.

 

I just hate the re-written fluff, the special characters backgrounds and the freaking monkey!

 

In future matt Ward should be just let loose on the rules while others write the fluff. He did the same ting with the BA codex, great rules, terrible fluff.

I'm just thankful to have a modern codex and that has excellent troop choices. I do not like all the changes, but on the whole I think it could have gone a lot worse for us than it did.

 

As an added bonus, I feel like I have an excellent chance to destroy Thunderwolves in bulk, which I think is about the most annoying unit in the game system currently.

I must admit I haven't played grey knights since the days of Rogue Trader but I really like most of the new codex. For me the attraction is the versatility of the army builds that you can make.

As a die hard marine player it is going to take some getting used to not being able to call on as much armour as I normally can but am having loads of fun with the Inquisitorial side of the list.

 

I'm not really a fan of the background material but for themed armies the book is extremely versatile. I'm glad they put Castellan Crowe in there though as I'm not really a fan of terminator armour either and he allows me to take a power armoured commander to lead my force.

 

I'm really looking forward to getting in some games with this army.

Doghouse, how about an AA or PA wearing Inquisitor for your HQ over Crowe?

Everyone seems to forget Inquisition. Not only do you get some henchmen, but he's also cheap as chips and very versatile with his upgrades. Besides, why would you want to take Crowe or a regular BC? Neither are particularly useful.

Yeah I'm including Corteaz purely to make use of the retinue as troops rule. I think that the warrior acolytes and retinues in general are a nice way of adding some character to the army and fleshing out the model count a bit. Twelve man squads of guard may not be that useful but there are some nice options for fleshing the squads out.

 

The main reason for including Crowe is like I say to be able to use a power armoured marine as a HQ as I'm not really a fan of terminator armour and prefer to have lower wound counts on my hq. I could take a BC but he's only got one wound and not really worth the points.

Yea at first I was having troubles adapting to the changes, I really missed hitting on 3s and wounding on 2s on the most common occurrence of an assault phase and the loss of true grit was painstaking but then I realized, a plane jane 10 man strike squad if they had true grit would have 21 attacks whether charging or being charged with force weapons, which would be an abomination for a 200 point troop choice for 10 guys without upgrades.
Funny, I was expecting a lot more hassle being made towards the OP. Previously, whenever I've read of a veteran's disappointment at the new codex it's always been met by hostility.

 

Really? :huh:

 

Because my impression was completely different - that once someone says Codex: GK is bad, there always starts a chorus of people who never bothered to read the codex at all yet misheard (or outright invented) reasons why fluff/rules suck <_<

 

I had to do a double-take, polite, well-argumented discussion about GK, lots of praise, it looked like ended up in the wrong forum by mistake :P

If it helps, I must agree with the OP in that the new book is not what I was looking forward to.

 

OP, you can find more here.

 

There is a lot of good in this dex (rules and design-wise, anyway), but I do like my old Fandex better. One of these days I might get motivated and revamp that, but not anytime soon, probably.

 

Fluff-wise, I would have much preferred a more conservative old school guy like Phil Kelly, or even Jervis Johnson to Mat Ward. Hell, one of those Fantasy Flight Games, or Forgeworld guys would have been better.

 

 

Valerian

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.