Melee Challenge beast

[NCSUWolf]

So I was thinking about different options, some in the range of assault units our codex can pump out. With the various power monsters in C:SM Ive seen recently, it got me thinking of what it would cost to build our own Unforgiven Relic beast.... who better than the unique keeper of our chapter's relics: The Interrogator-Chaplin.

 

SO, I think it's about time to kitbash and field none other than:

 

Brother Relicarious:

 

Interrogator-Chaplin,

TDA

Mace of Redemption,

Monster Slayer of Caliban

 

215pts for  WS 5, T4, W3, I5, A3, 2+/4++, Zealot/Hatred

-neither weapon is specialist or unwieldy so you get +1A

-Both are AP 3

-Mace is +3Str (Str 7), concussive, BLIND, and +AP2 vs CSM

-Sword can become +2Str(Str 6), Instant Death

 

Note: You cannot get the effect from both weapons BUT you can roll the Monster Slayer's roll at the beginning of combat and if you get the ID profile go with it or just swing with +1A from the Mace with all it's USR goodies.

 

While it might not be as boss as the Shield+Sword+Armor combo from C:SM, it still sounds like a sweet marine (*cough* that still get's ID'd vs a Krak missile *cough*)... could always put him ona bike instead of TDA >.>

 

 

[Interrogator Stobz]

Shows how our codex suffers in the uber character department;

Example: an opponent of mine runs a Wolf Lord on a bike with TH/SS, Articifer armour and Eternal Warrior. WS6, S8, T5, W3, 2+/3++ EW is really hard to kill. SImilar points, maybe a little more (30ish) but the fact that he has the option to make a generic character better than any of our HQ choices is the important bit.

Oh, and he runs him behind Corbulo to wrangle 2+ LoS and 2+FnP shenanigans! Did I say hard to kill? They run with BA tactical termies for some serious midfield ground domination.

Me no likey facing that, although I managed to DS a LSV(Proxy) behind them to kill 4 termies last game before facing the pain

Grizzle over

OT: Nice IC, I'd just leave out the MSoC and spend the points elsewhere though, our dex is best as a shooty one like it or not.

Edit: Clarity, One of the main reasons our dex has sub par characters is the lack of AP2, C:CSM players are flocking away from actual 3+ marines in favour of Cultists and spamming 2+ or hellturkeys in the uber competitive environment. That environment is where our problem is, in normal friendly games we do ok.

[[TA]Typher]

For the cost he'd be on par with Azrael. With the reroll on the first turn and the chance of ID he'd probably have a better chance to wound, but Az would be better defensively with 2+/4++, 4W and 6+ FNP.

 

A S:SM Chapter master, with Artificer armor, Shield Eternal, Power Axe, the Iron Hands Trait (it will not Die) is the cost of Azrael. 2+/3++, 6+ FNP, St5 Ap2 weapon, EW and it will not die. Unless you are fighting wraithknights this guy would wreck any of the HQ's in our Codex.

[Interrogator Stobz]

_{^^^ This, yet another example of our Characters subparness :P}

 

 

_{OT: If I were you I would put him on a bike or jump pack, that way he can run away from the real CC Beasts in the game and bully soft targets with the MoR.} 

[march10k]

I'm partial to an interrogator on a bike with mace+crozius...done and done.

[facmanpob]

My plan.... accept that a fair fight is one that I might lose, then shoot them in the face with plasma, rad and stasis grenades, and charge them with Sammy and a load of Black Knights!

[march10k]

Actually...the only unfair fight is the one you lose ;)

[facmanpob]

Actually...the only unfair fight is the one you lose

There was a quote in a sidebar in one of the old Phoenix Command RPG books which went along the lines of "A fair fight is one I might lose, never fight fair!"

[elphilo]

I'm partial to an interrogator on a bike with mace+crozius...done and done.

Yep T5 is a really big deal with the decline of S10 weapons. 

 

Also the Monster Slayer of Caliban sounds really nifty, but in play is just a disappointment. Going with the MoR and his Crozius is probably the best bet. 

[InstantKarma]

This might be a nice melee beast, thought my inclination is for more towards a defensive character to compliment a shooty squad.  I just keep looking at Lion's Roar and knowing I want to put it on a character in a plasma squad.

Libby on Bike, Conversion Field, Force Axe, Prescience, Digital Weps.

Could be used as a cruise missile, flying solo to charge a squad and pick out Sgts et al., in challenges.  I've never seen anyone mention the conversion field (I'm guessing it's seen as too gimicky).

Figure he usually gets 3-4 attacks that he can re-roll, and always re-roll 1 wound, and anyone who hits first has to deal with T5 and the risk of getting blinded.  Also make him Mastery Level 2 and save that 1 Warp Charge for a multi-wound character and threaten them with ID.

[Garath]

...why would we want to build a cc monster Hq?...

 

  In a game with objectives, killing a character (any way you do it)  nets you another VP (Slay he warlord).  One the other hand , killing a unit brings you no additional points.

 

  So it pays to take a unit, and it doesn't pay to take a character.  

 

I say skip the idea of trying to kill enemy characters with our own. Instead, either:

 

-shoot them in the face

- or take Deathwing knights

-or Black knights

 

   Fight fire with fire.  A DA character costing 200+ pts will have ...5 attacks?  Deathwing knights(5 of them for 200 pts)  will have 15?

 

   Plus, they hit before most things with Ap2 in cc, and live against Ap3.

 

  Really it is that simple .  Funny enough, if you have an IC in the same combat with the Warlord trait The Hunt- you should refuse the challenge with him and let his DK make short work of the enemy...and you still get 2 VP 

[march10k]

The problem with an assassin with the conversion field is that, after he kills the sergeant, he's still locked with up to nine other dudes.  He might eventually hack his way out of the scrum, but he's not really going to do much.

[InstantKarma]

The problem with an assassin with the conversion field is that, after he kills the sergeant, he's still locked with up to nine other dudes.  He might eventually hack his way out of the scrum, but he's not really going to do much.

 

Fair enough.

[captain sox]

I Thought only 1 of the Chapter Relics was allowed per model according to the Codex?

 

page 91 under Chapter Relics

 

"A model can replace One weapon with one of the following"

 

or am I missing something?

[MadMek83]

IMHO Dark Angels are not and never have been melee orientated chapter. What they do is use bolter's in such way, it makes imperial fists bolter drill shame. That plus plasma. After all Space Wolves and Blood Angels supposedly be more "assaulty" than Dark Angels and they codex have been weighted as such way. While other take super killy CC's we spam bolter's and whittle those super killiys down with massive bolter and plasma fire before they get into close combat. Or that is how I see it. Also, I see biker chaplain with Mace of Rdemption a slightly more better choice than the TDA chappy. 3+/4++ and t5 is better chhoice than the 2+ / 5++ t4. Of course you can take DWK and be done with shield wall and have t5 aslong you keep base contact but its still tad more unreliable than having bike. I still have to say that TDA chappy with mace in DWK unit is mighty beast but also superb bullet magnet.

[Interrogator Stobz]

@ Menchalior:TDA Chappy still keeps 4++ iirc(at work)

[Seleucus]

I Thought only 1 of the Chapter Relics was allowed per model according to the Codex?

 

page 91 under Chapter Relics

 

"A model can replace One weapon with one of the following"

 

or am I missing something?

Still being debated - does it mean you can only swap one weapon full stop!? Or does it mean you can swap one weapon for one relic and one weapon for a different relic?

 

I agree with you, but many go with the latter interpretation until FAQed (if ever!).

[shortysl]

@ Menchalior:TDA Chappy still keeps 4++ iirc(at work)

Yes he does. He doesn't lose his Rosarius upon taking Terminator armour.

[march10k]

 

 

I Thought only 1 of the Chapter Relics was allowed per model according to the Codex?

 

page 91 under Chapter Relics

 

"A model can replace One weapon with one of the following"

 

or am I missing something?

Still being debated - does it mean you can only swap one weapon full stop!? Or does it mean you can swap one weapon for one relic and one weapon for a different relic?

 

I agree with you, but many go with the latter interpretation until FAQed (if ever!).

It's only being debated because certain cheaters refuse to accept reality. If you were intended to be able to take more than one choice, it would read "may replace [each/any] weapon with one of the following" The only other possible reading of the use of the word "one" is that they intended to preclude you from dropping more than one weapon per choice taken. And that's patently absurd! "gee, Ralph, what if someone exchanges his pistol AND his sword in exchange for the lion's roar. Why, that'd be overpowered!" "You're right, Harold, we'd better prevent that by specifying that only ONE weapon may be dropped for each relic taken." C'mon, man! One means one. Either it means only one swop, or it means that you can't drop multiple weapons in exchange for each relic taken. It can't mean anything else.

 

A model can replace one weapon. Full stop. That clause stands on its own as a complete sentence. It doesn't read "can replace each weapon," it doesn't read "may replace as many weapons as he has." It reads "may replace one weapon." That's plain English that leaves no room for interpretation. The rest of the sentence "with one of the following" is a prepositional phrase that acts as an adverb, answering the question "replaced how?" In no way does the prepositional phrase modify the word "one," it has NOTHING to do with that word, it is only concerned with the word "replace."

[Cactus]

Great post march10k. You've persuaded me.

[march10k]

Well, that's good to hear...my tone in that post (admittedly negative) is the product of frustration.  There are people out there who go "loophole-mining" in the codexes, looking for any excuse to invent a more favorable meaning where they imagine they find a loosely-worded rule.  The problem, besides the fact that they're doing it in the first place, is that they aren't English professors.  They're not qualified to identify ambiguous phrasing in the first place, so what they do discover is usually a result of their own "I'm a native speaker, so I don't actually know the rules of the language, I just go by what 'feels' right" English, not a result of an actual mistake by the author.  Not that it's relevant if the author does make a mistake, we go by RAI, not RAW.  And then they present a case to the forums, and some people say "hey, that sounds reasonable."  Those people who have been persuaded by the charlatans forget that there's a difference between "reasonable" and "correct," but they bear far less blame than the original fraudster.

[FlamingDeth]

I'm perfectly willing to let people exchange for more than one relic even if its not correct as its a fairly worthless waste of points. I can't think of a single relic combination that's points efficient and makes sense.

[[TA]Typher]

 

I'm perfectly willing to let people exchange for more than one relic even if its not correct as its a fairly worthless waste of points. I can't think of a single relic combination that's points efficient and makes sense.

 

Maybe not i our codex.. C:SM has a few.

[ValourousHeart]

March10k,

 

You are probably right about that. But people make arguments over the word "one" in 40k all of the time.

 

Take the infiltrate USR. There is no unit in the game where only a single member has infiltrate and the rest of the squad does not. The only thing they could be referring to is an IC with infiltrate joined to a unit. But people argue that the unit can't infiltrate based on an order of operations that isn't actually listed anywhere in the book.

 

So apparently in that example one means "yes one, but not that one."

 

Back on topic, what about taking the cloak? And does taking the cloak prevent you from taking the mace since the cloak doesn't require you to replace a weapon?

[march10k]

The shroud of heroes?  Now that is an interesting question.  I think it's GW's intent that each character can only have one relic, but the fact that the cloak does not replace a weapon suggests that there's room to argue that the rules pertaining to relics, which is the sentence about replacing a weapon, don't apply.  I would allow the cloak and a weapon, but not two weapons, even though I think GW intended a limit of one relic.