Anyone else dislike what has been done with the BT?

[GrauGeist]

I wasn't too happy that I lost my Doctrines with the new guard codex, but the new book makes up for that.

I want Armored Company and/or Cameoline infantry, too. Oh, well.

[Denzark]

I think BT got lucky... Better here than a WD codex.

[Anggul]

They gained much and lost pretty much nothing. There's nothing to complain about, it wasn't hamfisted.

[Cadian122]

I want Armored Company and/or Cameoline infantry, too. Oh, well.

You still can do Armoured Company (all-russes) thanks to Forgeworld (huzzah)

They gained much and lost pretty much nothing. There's nothing to complain about, it wasn't hamfisted.

I couldn't agree more, you said what I took about 500 words to say in just over a dozen...

[Katharon]

Cadian122 knows what I like. Armored Battle Group ftw!

[Charistoph]

They gained much and lost pretty much nothing. There's nothing to complain about, it wasn't hamfisted.

Model-wise, this is correct. Unit-wise, as mentioned earlier, lost the 2W Commander, the 3W Chaplain, and Combat Servitors (and Terminator Command Squad, but we would have been lucky to keep it).

Rules-wise, this was ham-fisted. They could have kept the two main rules that we already had in the Righteous Zeal and No Pity! No Remorse! No Fear! and also allowed the Champion to keep his Vows. But instead we had half of one of the Vows installed as one part of the Chapter Tactics, a weaker (but more controllable) version of Righteous Zeal in Crusader, and one rule to make us challenge monkeys.

Now, don't get me wrong, I LIKE the new version of Accept Any Challenge. It reflects the implied close combat desire that is part of the Templar character and just feels right. If anything, I miss the opportunities a new codex could have presented. One of those would have been to have more Characters available in our squads to engage in Challenges.

[daboarder]

Model-wise, this is correct. Unit-wise, as mentioned earlier, lost the 2W Commander, the 3W Chaplain, and Combat Servitors (and Terminator Command Squad, but we would have been lucky to keep it).

Like every other space marine army?

[Cadian122]

Model-wise, this is correct. Unit-wise, as mentioned earlier, lost the 2W Commander, the 3W Chaplain, and Combat Servitors (and Terminator Command Squad, but we would have been lucky to keep it).

the SM Codex lost all of them in it's previous update, I must say that I was really annoyed if I was facing a BT army, as I found that they tended to be played by the power-gamer chaps who just wanted to adamantine mantle/3+ss stuff (usually the 3W chaplains in Terminator Armour), take a Terminator Assault squad (with Furious Charge) and proceed to ruin ones afternoon/evening. Now if someone takes a BT army, I know that I'll be up against a decent, recent book, with no stupid archaic rules/wargear to worry about.

Like every other space marine army?

Couldn't have put it better myself.

[Katharon]

One thing that does bother me is the Emperor's Champion: specifically his combat challenge stances, and in particular the "Smite the Unclean" stance.

The EC already only has 2 attacks, three if you count the bolt pistol he carries (for two-CC weapons +1 A). However, this particular stance causes the Black Sword to become two-handed, so he loses an attack. All well and good, except that the stance also makes the sword, which had just been handling fine one-handed, "Unwieldy"...dafuq?

You expect me to believe that when the Emperor's Champion grasps his Black Sword with two hands (I know this could sound very dirty, you sick puppies) that he is somehow slower than when he was using it with one hand? I call BS on that one. I would demand that GW FAQ it so that it no longer is "Unwieldy" for that stance.

[Denzark]

One thing that does bother me is the Emperor's Champion: specifically his combat challenge stances, and in particular the "Smite the Unclean" stance.

The EC already only has 2 attacks, three if you count the bolt pistol he carries (for two-CC weapons +1 A). However, this particular stance causes the Black Sword to become two-handed, so he loses an attack. All well and good, except that the stance also makes the sword, which had just been handling fine one-handed, "Unwieldy"...dafuq?

You expect me to believe that when the Emperor's Champion grasps his Black Sword with two hands (I know this could sound very dirty, you sick puppies) that he is somehow slower than when he was using it with one hand? I call BS on that one. I would demand that GW FAQ it so that it no longer is "Unwieldy" for that stance.

He gets extra S for 2-handed. A 2 handed stance would be big sweeping slashes and would be slower, and would cut deeper. What are you complaining about? its entirely reasonable to make you make a tactical choice - if it was always extra S and no negatives, players would do it all the time, making the BTs actually have less fluff/rules.