<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0">
	<channel>
		<title><![CDATA[Latest posts for the thread "Thoughts on the updated Templar fluff on psykers and sisters?"]]></title>
		<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/31.page</link>
		<description><![CDATA[Latest messages posted in the thread "Thoughts on the updated Templar fluff on psykers and sisters?"]]></description>
		<generator>JForum - http://www.jforum.net</generator>
			<item>
				<title>Thoughts on the updated Templar fluff on psykers and sisters?</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ So the new 'dex basically says: "we don't particularly mind psykers we just don't seem to have any in our chapter...".  While I understand the slight adjustment for game purposes to allow allies who have psykers, I thought the wording to be a bit awkward, I think something along the lines of "we barely tolerate the presence of loyal chapter psykers in our midst" would have been a bit more on par with the fluff while still working with the game aspect.<br /> And then the whole "we love our Sisters and will gladly join forces with them" is rather poor since they're Desperate Allies in the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(13);'>BRB</span>...<br /> Wonder if they'll update the allies chart in a <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(15);'>BT</span> supplement or something...]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6075953.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6075953.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 22 Sep 2013 20:38:11]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ phoenix darkus]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Thoughts on the updated Templar fluff on psykers and sisters?</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ Or maybe not mess with the fluff in the first place. Part of the appeal of alot of players to certain armies is the fluff, small tweaks maybe but something big is just stupid in my eyes. I would have rather waited longer for a proper <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(15);'>BT</span> codex then roll it into codex generic marine. If I wanted a generic <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(119);'>SM</span> chapter I would have picked something like Ultramarimes  <img src="/s/i/a/934fe4f0c85983a716e6680a72065e99.gif" border="0"> <br /> <br /> Definitely thinking of selling my <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(15);'>BTs</span> now.<br /> <br /> Rant over]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6076004.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6076004.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 22 Sep 2013 21:00:50]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Kevv6]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Thoughts on the updated Templar fluff on psykers and sisters?</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><cite>phoenix darkus wrote:</cite>And then the whole "we love our Sisters and will gladly join forces with them" is rather poor since they're Desperate Allies in the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(13);'>BRB</span>...</div></blockquote>Well, a lot of people on dakka thought that the Allies Matrix was rather poor when it came out.<br /> With the Templars-vs-<span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(121);'>SoB</span> thing being just one of several examples where gamers would scratch their heads.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6076185.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6076185.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sun, 22 Sep 2013 22:18:44]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Lynata]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Thoughts on the updated Templar fluff on psykers and sisters?</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ The change in stance over pskyers certainly knocked me for six at first but  it still keeps the core item of abhoring the (xeno) witch, on the second point, I had always found the arrangement of the allies matrix silly, its not the hardest thing to change either, I'd love an assymetric table as it would make you think which you want to be the primary ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6084145.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6084145.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 25 Sep 2013 04:39:09]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ macc92]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Thoughts on the updated Templar fluff on psykers and sisters?</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ The idea for an asymetric table is kind of cool in terms of game mechanics, but how would you justify it? The level of cooperation would always be determined by the least enthusiastic party, as that one would block any offers of friendship or cooperation that would surpass their own level of comfort, and the Allies rules represent how individuals from both armies get along with each other.<br /> For example, fluffwise, even if the Space Wolves would have little issue with deploying alongside Sisters per se, that doesn't mean the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(121);'>SoB</span> would have forgotten about the whole "being mutated and murdering priests" thing. Even if the Orks don't care about differences between Dark Angels and Black Templars, the latter may feel differently about them. etc]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6084840.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6084840.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 25 Sep 2013 12:36:57]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Lynata]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Thoughts on the updated Templar fluff on psykers and sisters?</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ I haven't checked out this editions rulebook. That is shocking to hear about this change to Black Templars. The deathwatch roleplaying game goes to great lengths to stress how much Templars hate psykers. *sigh*. Won't be buying any <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(3);'>40k</span> tabletop Templars then if this is the new direction they are taking them. ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6085005.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6085005.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 25 Sep 2013 13:46:53]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Lexx]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Thoughts on the updated Templar fluff on psykers and sisters?</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ To be fair, the Deathwatch <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(345);'>RPG</span> takes a lot of things into new directions all by itself. I still like <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(50);'>GW</span>'s version of the Deathwatch <i>a lot</i> more than <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(386);'>FFG</span>'s, and find the idea to entrust a wholly independent and secretive circle of Astartes with undetectable and auto-piloted Exterminatus Kill-ships ridiculous, considering the Horus Heresy.<br /> <br /> I agree about the psyker thing, though. It's kind of sad, and in a way even a little out of line with their (finally confirmed) appreciation for the Imperial Creed. The Ecclesiarchy and the Sisters don't have a very high opinion of psykers either, after all.]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6085130.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6085130.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Wed, 25 Sep 2013 14:21:52]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ Lynata]]></author>
			</item>
			<item>
				<title>Re:Thoughts on the updated Templar fluff on psykers and sisters?</title>
				<description><![CDATA[ <blockquote><div><img src="https://www.dakkadakka.com/s/i/a/279c7d2a99de299f7684cd26bcebe4ed.jpeg" height="20" border="0">&nbsp;<a href="/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6084840.page"><b>Lynata wrote:</b></a><br/>The idea for an asymetric table is kind of cool in terms of game mechanics, but how would you justify it? The level of cooperation would always be determined by the least enthusiastic party, as that one would block any offers of friendship or cooperation that would surpass their own level of comfort, and the Allies rules represent how individuals from both armies get along with each other.<br /> For example, fluffwise, even if the Space Wolves would have little issue with deploying alongside Sisters per se, that doesn't mean the <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(121);'>SoB</span> would have forgotten about the whole "being mutated and murdering priests" thing. Even if the Orks don't care about differences between Dark Angels and Black Templars, the latter may feel differently about them. etc</div></blockquote><br /> <br /> I believe the 30k <span class="glossaryitem" onmouseover='gp(320);'>HH</span> "Betrayal" book actually uses asymmetrical ally charts.  ]]></description>
				<guid isPermaLink="true">http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6094704.page</guid>
				<link>http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/preList/553812/6094704.page</link>
				<pubDate><![CDATA[Sat, 28 Sep 2013 07:36:16]]> GMT</pubDate>
				<author><![CDATA[ kazian]]></author>
			</item>
	</channel>
</rss>