chrisB1 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 Hello folks, I am off to GamesDay 2011 and hoping to get my hands on a nice big Contemptor to have as my Venerable Dread for my GK army. A couple of questions if I may? 1. Can I use the Con Dread in my GK army? 2. Any ideas on points cost of Conversion Beamer? 3. Can I give the heavy flamers 'psy flame'? 4. Can I treat him as a Psy-Pilot? 5. Can I make him an Ven Dread? Many thanks Chris Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/ Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gentlemanloser Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 1: No. 2: Unless it's on the FW free download, No. ;) 3: No. 4: No. 5: No. All the rules for them are on the FW site, none of them are compatible with the GK 'dex. ;) Sad as that decision was... Edit: Unless you just want to use the FW mini as an actual Codex GK Dread, using all the rules and point costs from our Dex (So no conversion beamer). In which case you'll need to speak to the TO to get thier view on your 'counts-as'. /shrug Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/#findComment-2867663 Share on other sites More sharing options...
boreas Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I think it makes sense that we don't get the Contemptor, as it was probably used before the creation of GKs. I still plan to use those models for my Venerable Dreads. The regular (but still awesome) FW GK dreads will be my psyfilemen. Phil Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/#findComment-2867692 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abaddonshand Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I plan on getting a contemptor to use as a psyfledread, once the release the autocannon arms. I think it fits the aesthetics of the dreadknight. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/#findComment-2867903 Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffersonian000 Posted September 5, 2011 Share Posted September 5, 2011 I'd rather use it as a DreadKnight (and I actually do love the way the DreadKnight looks, just hate the stupid oval base). They are took big to be effective Dreadnoughts, but the right size to make DreadKnights not stick out too much like they do now. SJ Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/#findComment-2868080 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fume Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 Jeffersonian000: Technically if your using a contemptor as a dreadknight it should be placed on the oval base. For friendly games who cares, but for tournaments you should be using the base provided. By using a smaller base you are potentially giving your self an advantage. For example, with a 60mm Base you can get more dreadknights into base to base with a squad, or vehicles than you can with the large oval bases. Also takes up less space, so doesnt block as much movement of your own troops around it. Easier to fit it in between terrain pieces to avoid terrain tests. Etc Etc. But, if you and i were having a friendly game and you had a contemptor on a 60mm Base as a dreadknight, i wouldnt mind. At a tournament i might. Just a thought. Edit: Sorry Abaddon, redirected my comment to the correct person. :( Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/#findComment-2868220 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Abaddonshand Posted September 6, 2011 Share Posted September 6, 2011 @Abaddonshand: Technically if your using a contemptor as a dreadknight it should be placed on the oval base. For friendly games who cares, but for tournaments you should be using the base provided. By using a smaller base you are potentially giving your self an advantage. For example, with a 60mm Base you can get more dreadknights into base to base with a squad, or vehicles than you can with the large oval bases. Also takes up less space, so doesnt block as much movement of your own troops around it. Easier to fit it in between terrain pieces to avoid terrain tests. Etc Etc. But, if you and i were having a friendly game and you had a contemptor on a 60mm Base as a dreadknight, i wouldnt mind. At a tournament i might. Just a thought. I have no intention of using it as a dreadknight, I said I plan on using it as a psyfleman because I like how the looks match up with the dreadknight I already field ;) Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/#findComment-2868328 Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeffersonian000 Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 Jeffersonian000: Technically if your using a contemptor as a dreadknight it should be placed on the oval base. For friendly games who cares, but for tournaments you should be using the base provided. By using a smaller base you are potentially giving your self an advantage. For example, with a 60mm Base you can get more dreadknights into base to base with a squad, or vehicles than you can with the large oval bases. Also takes up less space, so doesnt block as much movement of your own troops around it. Easier to fit it in between terrain pieces to avoid terrain tests. Etc Etc. But, if you and i were having a friendly game and you had a contemptor on a 60mm Base as a dreadknight, i wouldnt mind. At a tournament i might. Just a thought. Edit: Sorry Abaddon, redirected my comment to the correct person. ^_^ I have no intention of using it as a DreadKnight, I said I thought it looked better as a DreadKnight because its too big to be a good Dreadnought replacement. My comment on the oval base only reflected one small dislike of a otherwise superb model in every other respect. SJ Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/#findComment-2869166 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinoDoc Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I have no intention of using it as a DreadKnight, I said I thought it looked better as a DreadKnight because its too big to be a good Dreadnought replacement. My comment on the oval base only reflected one small dislike of a otherwise superb model in every other respect. It looks like it would make a better DK than I originally thought. This is obviously a BT conversion but it gave me hope on what could be done to turn it into a DK. http://a7.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/305050_189703641099682_100001801425810_415710_5385000_n.jpg Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/#findComment-2869233 Share on other sites More sharing options...
brother varen Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 here is the experimental rules from Forgeworld: http://www.forgeworld.co.uk/Downloads/Prod.../Contemptor.pdf Hope this helps. dinodoc, is that your contemptor? It gives me some ideas. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/#findComment-2869243 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fume Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 I have no intention of using it as a DreadKnight, I said I thought it looked better as a DreadKnight because its too big to be a good Dreadnought replacement. My comment on the oval base only reflected one small dislike of a otherwise superb model in every other respect. SJ Fair enough. I misinterpreted your post slightly, sorry. But I feel my point still stands for people in general who are considering to do this Contemptor-Dreadknight counts as. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/#findComment-2869276 Share on other sites More sharing options...
DinoDoc Posted September 7, 2011 Share Posted September 7, 2011 dinodoc, is that your contemptor? It gives me some ideas.I wish. I found the pic on Forgeworld's Facebook page. Link to comment https://bolterandchainsword.com/topic/237841-grey-knight-contemptor/#findComment-2869501 Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.