So lately it seems that Games Workshop has decided to remove the Black Templars, to me at least. First, as time goes on, they seem to be mentioned less and less in White Dwarf, BL novels and ect. Second, they lost their book. Yes, I know we can still play them, but to me they feel less like crusading knights in space and more 5 man las/plas teams. Whereas their draw before was a CC marine army who avenged their fallen while carving legends from the flesh of their fallen enemies, now they feel like space marines with chainswords. And third, while im not sure how valid this may be, Ive heard that no one at GW likes the Templars.

Basically, what im asking is for some proof that my favorite army is not dead.

Is their any evidence

You know they have their own chapter tactics in the codex space marines rigth?
Having crusaders squads with iniates and neopythes along with dedicated LRC why would they not feel like BT? You still have helbretch and th Champion aswell.

Because they no longer have the rules that make them different than normal marines. While they do have their own chapter tactics, frankly their a shadow of what we used to be able to do. Helbrecht and Grimdalus are crap( but TBH, they were crap before) and the best unit we had- Reclusiarch- is gone! And what about the background? 4 pages of sub-par fluff. That's it.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Eh, maybe im being to picky. But it still feels like GW is trying to forget the Templars ever existed. Yeah, we have our own chapter tactics and whatnot, but whens the last time were mentioned in a book? Besides Helsreach, I mean.

I think it was an an interview at an Enter the Citadel event or something, but some folks at GW (Jervis or Andy Chambers, was a while ago) said that they kind of went a little too crazy with variant Space Marine chapters, the same as they were a little too ambitious with the Inquisition. Hell, there are White Dwarf issues that mention an upcoming Ordos Xenos codex that we never got because they were so Inquisition-happy for a while. It's just a matter of GW toning things back down to a more reasonable level, since now they have fewer codices to balance and keep track of. Of course all this sort of gets thrown out the window now that supplements are coming out so frequently, but most of them don't have many more rules than the Black Templars chapter tactics.The Templars aren't dead, they just took a few steps backward. Hell, the WD battle report for Codex: Space Marines was starring them!

Good point! I totally forgot about supplements. Perhaps well get one in the future...?

If you got marines painted black with swords, what more do you need to feel like you are playing Black Templar?

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Good point! I totally forgot about supplements. Perhaps well get one in the future...?

That's what I'm hoping! There hasn't been much rhyme or reason to the supplement releases (as they've mostly been personal passion projects and not anything handed down from on high), but it'd make a lot of sense if there was one for Templars.

They're not dead, they just lost some character in exchange of new wargear and other goodies.

Well, thanks for the reassurance. TBH, I was just worried we were going the way of the squats. You know, book last edition (kinda), mention of us this edition in another book, next edition gone.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Good point! I totally forgot about supplements. Perhaps well get one in the future...?

What would it add exactly? You already have army specific rules (Chapter Tactics), and a unique unit (Crusader Squads). So a page of relics and warlord traits? That's actually less stuff than people are complaining about rules wise than we get now.

 TheCustomLime wrote:
If you got marines painted black with swords, what more do you need to feel like you are playing Black Templar?

How about an army that isn't rubbish except when running an inferior (to WS) bike list? An army that can reasonably play according to background without being trash-tier?

That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

Well that and the large amount of "Ignores Cover" stuff that came out that basically nerfed Infantry Hammer tactics.

Local guy in our group sold off all of his BT stuff because he did not feel like it was a "real" army anymore. So at least someone else feels the same way, and felt strongly enough about it to sell his stuff.

Loborocket wrote:
Local guy in our group sold off all of his BT stuff because he did not feel like it was a "real" army anymore. So at least someone else feels the same way, and felt strongly enough about it to sell his stuff.

I honestly don't get that an I play Sisters. I mean I've got a codex that was first only in a magazine and now is only online. The army hasn't even seen a new model or unit edition since 3rd but I wouldn't say it's "not a real army".

Different mindsets I guess.

Loborocket wrote:
Local guy in our group sold off all of his BT stuff because he did not feel like it was a "real" army anymore. So at least someone else feels the same way, and felt strongly enough about it to sell his stuff.

That is such an anecdotal bit of evidence and doesn't really suggest a mass exodus of BT players. Never underestimate a nerd's tendency to pick up his ball and go home.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
Local guy in our group sold off all of his BT stuff because he did not feel like it was a "real" army anymore. So at least someone else feels the same way, and felt strongly enough about it to sell his stuff.

I honestly don't get that an I play Sisters. I mean I've got a codex that was first only in a magazine and now is only online. The army hasn't even seen a new model or unit edition since 3rd but I wouldn't say it's "not a real army".

Different mindsets I guess.

Not realy . the sob didn't lose much . BT lost a lot . 2 heavy weapons in 5 man terminator squads and veteran skills. Machine spirit vindicators . Sure they can now take all the stuff marines take , but taking those marine options doesn't use the models people who bought BT have and those options still work better using other chapter rules . If BT don't have divination and their biker list is weaker then the WS&IH one , then they are as good as dead.

If sob suddenly lost exorcists and dominions , but instead could take cultists squads , then it maybe could have been the same . thing.

Don't worry, BT will get their own supplement for $50, with LE for $100.

 Brother SRM wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
Local guy in our group sold off all of his BT stuff because he did not feel like it was a "real" army anymore. So at least someone else feels the same way, and felt strongly enough about it to sell his stuff.

That is such an anecdotal bit of evidence and doesn't really suggest a mass exodus of BT players. Never underestimate a nerd's tendency to pick up his ball and go home.

I <3 my templars!

Sons of Dorn!

Makumba wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
Local guy in our group sold off all of his BT stuff because he did not feel like it was a "real" army anymore. So at least someone else feels the same way, and felt strongly enough about it to sell his stuff.

I honestly don't get that an I play Sisters. I mean I've got a codex that was first only in a magazine and now is only online. The army hasn't even seen a new model or unit edition since 3rd but I wouldn't say it's "not a real army".

Different mindsets I guess.

Not realy . the sob didn't lose much . BT lost a lot . 2 heavy weapons in 5 man terminator squads and veteran skills. Machine spirit vindicators . Sure they can now take all the stuff marines take , but taking those marine options doesn't use the models people who bought BT have and those options still work better using other chapter rules . If BT don't have divination and their biker list is weaker then the WS&IH one , then they are as good as dead.

If sob suddenly lost exorcists and dominions , but instead could take cultists squads , then it maybe could have been the same . thing.

To be fair vanilla marines had to go through those same losses going from the 4th ed codex to 5th. Templars likely would have lost them anyway if they had gotten an updated codex on their own.

Makumba wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
Local guy in our group sold off all of his BT stuff because he did not feel like it was a "real" army anymore. So at least someone else feels the same way, and felt strongly enough about it to sell his stuff.

I honestly don't get that an I play Sisters. I mean I've got a codex that was first only in a magazine and now is only online. The army hasn't even seen a new model or unit edition since 3rd but I wouldn't say it's "not a real army".

Different mindsets I guess.

Not realy . the sob didn't lose much . BT lost a lot . 2 heavy weapons in 5 man terminator squads and veteran skills. Machine spirit vindicators . Sure they can now take all the stuff marines take , but taking those marine options doesn't use the models people who bought BT have and those options still work better using other chapter rules . If BT don't have divination and their biker list is weaker then the WS&IH one , then they are as good as dead.

If sob suddenly lost exorcists and dominions , but instead could take cultists squads , then it maybe could have been the same . thing.

Er, no. BT got access to many of the units and items they lacked that came from the same core army, aka the Space Marines got access to. They didn't get access to units from an entirely different army like in the Sisters example, that would be more like BT getting access to Necron Immortals.

Besides, if BT were a codex unto themselves as they were before, then they'd be in the same position as Dark Angels, relegated to the less competitive realm because they would suffer from the same deficiencies in comparison to some other current Space Marine release. At least this way the BT get updated every time the Space marine book gets updated.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).

And yeah, I know, BT in 5th was better as a shooting army yadda yadda. There were still some assault elements that weren't completely worthless. There were some things that only BT could do. Now that's more or less reduced to 5-man lasplas squads, while the other Chapter Tactics do everything else better than us. We'd been the worst MEQ Codex for more or less an edition (depending on how good you rank the BA PDF Codex), and then we get a rubbish Chapter Tactics that doesn't let us play the army according to fluff without being slapped silly.

If we still had Codex: Black Templars from 4th edition it'd be the Edition's fault that we aren't competetive, but when we've got a shiny new Codex that's less than a year old and we're still rubbish it's that Codex's fault, not the Edition.

/endrant

nobody wrote:

Makumba wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

Loborocket wrote:
Local guy in our group sold off all of his BT stuff because he did not feel like it was a "real" army anymore. So at least someone else feels the same way, and felt strongly enough about it to sell his stuff.

I honestly don't get that an I play Sisters. I mean I've got a codex that was first only in a magazine and now is only online. The army hasn't even seen a new model or unit edition since 3rd but I wouldn't say it's "not a real army".

Different mindsets I guess.

Not realy . the sob didn't lose much . BT lost a lot . 2 heavy weapons in 5 man terminator squads and veteran skills. Machine spirit vindicators . Sure they can now take all the stuff marines take , but taking those marine options doesn't use the models people who bought BT have and those options still work better using other chapter rules . If BT don't have divination and their biker list is weaker then the WS&IH one , then they are as good as dead.

If sob suddenly lost exorcists and dominions , but instead could take cultists squads , then it maybe could have been the same . thing.

To be fair vanilla marines had to go through those same losses going from the 4th ed codex to 5th. Templars likely would have lost them anyway if they had gotten an updated codex on their own.

Exactly. It is really less the BT losing stuff unique,they kept most of that, and rather more coming in line withe other Marine codex. Given the point drop you can actually run full crusaders squads.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).

And yeah, I know, BT in 5th was better as a shooting army yadda yadda. There were still some assault elements that weren't completely worthless. There were some things that only BT could do. Now that's more or less reduced to 5-man lasplas squads, while the other Chapter Tactics do everything else better than us. We'd been the worst MEQ Codex for more or less an edition (depending on how good you rank the BA PDF Codex), and then we get a rubbish Chapter Tactics that doesn't let us play the army according to fluff without being slapped silly.

If we still had Codex: Black Templars from 4th edition it'd be the Edition's fault that we aren't competetive, but when we've got a shiny new Codex that's less than a year old and we're still rubbish it's that Codex's fault, not the Edition.

/endrant

EDIT:

 Accolade wrote:


Besides, if BT were a codex unto themselves as they were before, then they'd be in the same position as Dark Angels, relegated to the less competitive realm because they would suffer from the same deficiencies in comparison to some other current Space Marine release. At least this way the BT get updated every time the Space marine book gets updated.

The thing is, it doesn't matter if we get updated every edition when the updates do nothing to help the army.

One thing to keep in mind as well is Matthew Hutson (Lead Designer at White Dwarf) has been showing off his Black Templar army for years.
http://www.games-workshop.com/gws/catalog/productDetail.jsp?prodId=prod2190012a


The army makes a fairly regular appearance in their official media so I would not be too concerned.
It may not get all the love the "mainstream" SM armies get but far from something to be dropped from the lore.
I would also say as an author that trying to write about SM's that prefer to fight in melee in a sci-fi setting and are a bunch of religious zealots would be "challenging".
As a table-top army to play, these bunch of nutters are a whole lot of fun.
I have had to embrace their more "shooty" side with 6th ed. since it is insanely difficult to take someone by surprise and jump into melee (never mind not getting shot to death).

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).
:

WIth rules like wounds taken from the front and overwatch I think that this edition's rules has a *lot* to do with the neutering of *everyone's* ability to assault, let alone BT.

 Accolade wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).
:

WIth rules like wounds taken from the front and overwatch I think that this edition's rules has a *lot* to do with the neutering of *everyone's* ability to assault, let alone BT.

But then the solution would be something like "due to their insane religious zealotry, Black Templar models are not removed as casualties as a result of Overwatch until the unit has moved into base combat" or some variation thereof, not "oh well, them's the breaks and there's nothing we can do about it". It's only the edition's fault because GW didn't do something about it.

 Accolade wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).
:

WIth rules like wounds taken from the front and overwatch I think that this edition's rules has a *lot* to do with the neutering of *everyone's* ability to assault, let alone BT.

Exactly. I haven't seen an army yet that has anything that really counters to the edition's rules to make their assault units better. And it's not like BT are the only ones who got spanked with the Nerf Paddle in that regards either: Khorne Berzerkers are on that list as well as Genestealers, Orks and more.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).
:

WIth rules like wounds taken from the front and overwatch I think that this edition's rules has a *lot* to do with the neutering of *everyone's* ability to assault, let alone BT.

Exactly. I haven't seen an army yet that has anything that really counters to the edition's rules to make their assault units better. And it's not like BT are the only ones who got spanked with the Nerf Paddle in that regards either: Khorne Berzerkers are on that list as well as Genestealers, Orks and more.

In the case of Khorne Berzerkers and Genestealers it STILL isn't somehow magically "the edition's fault". It's the fault of the Codices for not giving them some sort of loophole, whether that be Genestealers that are allowed to assault from outflanking or Berzerkers that can assault from any vehicle. Orks are fair enough, they haven't gotten a new Codex since 6th, so their problems are due to the edition changing, but the others are Codex failures.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

In the case of Khorne Berzerkers and Genestealers it STILL isn't somehow magically "the edition's fault". It's the fault of the Codices for not giving them some sort of loophole, whether that be Genestealers that are allowed to assault from outflanking or Berzerkers that can assault from any vehicle. Orks are fair enough, they haven't gotten a new Codex since 6th, so their problems are due to the edition changing, but the others are Codex failures.

The vehicles in the Chaos Codex can at least take Dirge Casters! Screw your overwatch!

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
In the case of Khorne Berzerkers and Genestealers it STILL isn't somehow magically "the edition's fault". It's the fault of the Codices for not giving them some sort of loophole, whether that be Genestealers that are allowed to assault from outflanking or Berzerkers that can assault from any vehicle. Orks are fair enough, they haven't gotten a new Codex since 6th, so their problems are due to the edition changing, but the others are Codex failures.

The edition is what set the tone for the books that fall into it. The development mindset is to take some of the teeth back out of assualt. The fact that it's carried through the edition regardless of codex does make it the edition's fault, at least to me. Heck, you want to talk about Assault Nerfs I want you to look at what they did to Repentia. I could reliably kill up to 4 UNITS a game with a single squad of them and now I can't even get them to the midfield!

Regardless, complaining that BT don't have super awesome assault options when everyone else lost theirs as well just comes across as selfish. When everyone is in the same boat and one person is crying about how much worse it is for them despite being in the same exact boat that person just won't get a lot of sympathy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 kronk wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

In the case of Khorne Berzerkers and Genestealers it STILL isn't somehow magically "the edition's fault". It's the fault of the Codices for not giving them some sort of loophole, whether that be Genestealers that are allowed to assault from outflanking or Berzerkers that can assault from any vehicle. Orks are fair enough, they haven't gotten a new Codex since 6th, so their problems are due to the edition changing, but the others are Codex failures.

The vehicles in the Chaos Codex can at least take Dirge Casters! Screw your overwatch!

If they survive long enough to reach the other side of the table. The armies you want the Dirge Casters for (Tau, Guard) can easily clean a large number of vehicles off the table in a turn.

Plus the only assault vehicle that can take them is the Godhammer, which is only a dedicated transport for a very small number of units, which means most units are stuck with the Rhinos they can't assault out of if they want an assault vehicle.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).
:

WIth rules like wounds taken from the front and overwatch I think that this edition's rules has a *lot* to do with the neutering of *everyone's* ability to assault, let alone BT.

Exactly. I haven't seen an army yet that has anything that really counters to the edition's rules to make their assault units better. And it's not like BT are the only ones who got spanked with the Nerf Paddle in that regards either: Khorne Berzerkers are on that list as well as Genestealers, Orks and more.

In the case of Khorne Berzerkers and Genestealers it STILL isn't somehow magically "the edition's fault". It's the fault of the Codices for not giving them some sort of loophole, whether that be Genestealers that are allowed to assault from outflanking or Berzerkers that can assault from any vehicle. Orks are fair enough, they haven't gotten a new Codex since 6th, so their problems are due to the edition changing, but the others are Codex failures.

WHY, for the love of God, should each army have to have a loophole to get around the rules in the main rulebook??? Why would it not make more sense to balance out the main rules so that assault has a fair opportunity to be effective?

All this does is clog up the game with more and more miscellaneous rules.

Player 1: "Okay, you're assaulting my Tau, I get to Overwatch."
Player 2: "No, my Templars have Knight Visage, they get to attack before you can Overwatch."
Player 2: "Oh, well then I guess I'll never get to overwatch again".

EDIT: I should clarify, I very much like the Templars. But I feel these suggestions just come across as special snowflake syndrome and ignore the greater systemic issues that 40k faces in terms of making assaulty armies competitive.

Worried about overwatch? Bring terminators!

 Accolade wrote:
WHY, for the love of God, should each army have to have a loophole to get around the rules in the main rulebook??? Why would it not make more sense to balance out the main rules so that assault has a fair opportunity to be effective?

All this does is clog up the game with more and more miscellaneous rules.

Because everyone wants their army to be the super special snowflake of skulldragging and when it isn't then it's "bad" and it "sucks" and it's "ruined forever".

My army is a super special snow flake because it's played by the most handsome man that plays 40k.

So there!

 kronk wrote:
My army is a super special snow flake because it's played by the most handsome man that plays 40k.

So there!

nobody likes you joker, also batman wants his city back kk thnx bye.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
WHY, for the love of God, should each army have to have a loophole to get around the rules in the main rulebook??? Why would it not make more sense to balance out the main rules so that assault has a fair opportunity to be effective?

All this does is clog up the game with more and more miscellaneous rules.

Because everyone wants their army to be the super special snowflake of skulldragging and when it isn't then it's "bad" and it "sucks" and it's "ruined forever".

You're right Clockwork, and man, it just kills me. Space Marine players seems so quick to discount their army as dead, unappreciated, and discarded. But they have ALL of the following:

PRIMARY CODEXS:
- Blood Angels
- Dark Angels
- Grey Knights (yes, they are essentialy just holy-er Space Marines)
- Main Codex Marines (which covers a bunch of the original legions)
- Space Wolves

SUPPLEMENTS:
- Clan Raukaan Iron Hands
- Sentinels of Terra Imperial Fists

All of this has to be updated, but people get upset if their particular faction doesn't get enough attention. And it seems like GW is trying to give attention to more chapters these days, perhaps they don't want to play favoritism for certain chapters. Meanwhile Sisters get a digital-only codex for their entire army and Orks are leftovers from the 4th edition, but somehow it's the BT I should feel sorry for.

Look, im not complaining. Im happy with what I have. Its just that from what Ive heard, Templars are no longer viewed favorably at GW. Im not saying that we need super special rules for assault or anything like that, I just wanted to know that my army is still viable, and will be for the next few editions. And as for sisters of battle, I have nothing but respect for those players. To show such dedication to an army that has been so abused... Its humbling!


Yeah, what really worried me was their absence from any recent novels or backround in 40k.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Look, im not complaining. Im happy with what I have. Its just that from what Ive heard, Templars are no longer viewed favorably at GW. Im not saying that we need super special rules for assault or anything like that, I just wanted to know that my army is still viable, and will be for the next few editions. And as for sisters of battle, I have nothing but respect for those players. To show such dedication to an army that has been so abused... Its humbling!


Yeah, what really worried me was their absence from any recent novels or backround in 40k.

They featured in the Necron codex, had a section in the SM codex all to themselves, and didn't they have one of the SM battle novels all to themselves (Helsreach)?

 Accolade wrote:


All of this has to be updated, but people get upset if their particular faction doesn't get enough attention. And it seems like GW is trying to give attention to more chapters these days, perhaps they don't want to play favoritism for certain chapters. Meanwhile Sisters get a digital-only codex for their entire army and Orks are leftovers from the 4th edition, but somehow it's the BT I should feel sorry for.

Digital dex or no, Sisters still play like they always has. Orks still haven't waited as long as BT had to in order to get a new Codex, and I'm not seeing anyone telling Orks to stop wanting better rules just because Tyranids, that other horde-centric Xenos Codex, got a new update. All those other Marine Chapter updates mean squat (pun intended) to someone who wants to play BT because they don't play the same. Sure, I could switch to playing some other Marine army (leading to a bunch of useless models just like for everyone else), but it wouldn't be the army I want to play, the army whose playstyle got me into the game in the first place.

Plus, the whole part where Sisters and Orks still have Codices, whereas BT don't.

 Accolade wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).
:

WIth rules like wounds taken from the front and overwatch I think that this edition's rules has a *lot* to do with the neutering of *everyone's* ability to assault, let alone BT.

Exactly. I haven't seen an army yet that has anything that really counters to the edition's rules to make their assault units better. And it's not like BT are the only ones who got spanked with the Nerf Paddle in that regards either: Khorne Berzerkers are on that list as well as Genestealers, Orks and more.

In the case of Khorne Berzerkers and Genestealers it STILL isn't somehow magically "the edition's fault". It's the fault of the Codices for not giving them some sort of loophole, whether that be Genestealers that are allowed to assault from outflanking or Berzerkers that can assault from any vehicle. Orks are fair enough, they haven't gotten a new Codex since 6th, so their problems are due to the edition changing, but the others are Codex failures.

WHY, for the love of God, should each army have to have a loophole to get around the rules in the main rulebook??? Why would it not make more sense to balance out the main rules so that assault has a fair opportunity to be effective?

All this does is clog up the game with more and more miscellaneous rules.

Player 1: "Okay, you're assaulting my Tau, I get to Overwatch."
Player 2: "No, my Templars have Knight Visage, they get to attack before you can Overwatch."
Player 2: "Oh, well then I guess I'll never get to overwatch again".

EDIT: I should clarify, I very much like the Templars. But I feel these suggestions just come across as special snowflake syndrome and ignore the greater systemic issues that 40k faces in terms of making assaulty armies competitive.

Ideally I'd agree with you, but when the rulebook's overly restrictive it's no good sitting around for an entire edition going "well shucks, them's the rules".

 Accolade wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Accolade wrote:
WHY, for the love of God, should each army have to have a loophole to get around the rules in the main rulebook??? Why would it not make more sense to balance out the main rules so that assault has a fair opportunity to be effective?

All this does is clog up the game with more and more miscellaneous rules.

Because everyone wants their army to be the super special snowflake of skulldragging and when it isn't then it's "bad" and it "sucks" and it's "ruined forever".

You're right Clockwork, and man, it just kills me. Space Marine players seems so quick to discount their army as dead, unappreciated, and discarded. But they have ALL of the following:

PRIMARY CODEXS:
- Blood Angels
- Dark Angels
- Grey Knights (yes, they are essentialy just holy-er Space Marines)
- Main Codex Marines (which covers a bunch of the original legions)
- Space Wolves

SUPPLEMENTS:
- Clan Raukaan Iron Hands
- Sentinels of Terra Imperial Fists

How many of those allow for the playstyle that was up until recently allowed by Codex: Black Templars? Plus, you're again assuming that I'm interested in playing "Space Marines, any variation" instead of "Black Templars".

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).


/endrant

Look, tbh the crusader buff is much better for us. I hated how the old codex worked, a shooty army was no fun. I tried to play my Templars as an assault force, and it worked on occasion, but to be consistently good I needed to play a shooting army. Now, while Crusader ist great, at least it encourages a more assault-oriented play style. What I really miss are the vows. Yes, they were overpowered, but it was still what made the bt stand out. Its like taking away the AOF'S from the sisters.

That's what I really want to see in a supplement- some form of vow.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Look, im not complaining. Im happy with what I have. Its just that from what Ive heard, Templars are no longer viewed favorably at GW. Im not saying that we need super special rules for assault or anything like that, I just wanted to know that my army is still viable, and will be for the next few editions. And as for sisters of battle, I have nothing but respect for those players. To show such dedication to an army that has been so abused... Its humbling!


Yeah, what really worried me was their absence from any recent novels or backround in 40k.

I understand where you're coming from BlackTemplar, and I realize the OP was more about background but I got a little sidetracked.

I think BT are just suffering from personal preferences of the current GW staff. I think the current writers have more interest in others areas in terms of Space Marines; they've been adding more Mongolian and cyborg marine stuff these days.

Part of the problem also comes from that the fact that Space Marines in general are saturated with the knightly theme. Black Templars sometimes come off as SUPER knightly space marines, and GW might just feel that's not as interesting as vampire-knight or monk-knight space marines.

But fear not, I imagine they will get back to Black Templars eventually. Who knows, maybe a new crusader will be added to the background, everyone know Templars are always down to crusade!

Sisters don't play anything like they used to.
At least we are still, basically, black space marines who like to hit things.

 Accolade wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 Accolade wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).
:

WIth rules like wounds taken from the front and overwatch I think that this edition's rules has a *lot* to do with the neutering of *everyone's* ability to assault, let alone BT.

Exactly. I haven't seen an army yet that has anything that really counters to the edition's rules to make their assault units better. And it's not like BT are the only ones who got spanked with the Nerf Paddle in that regards either: Khorne Berzerkers are on that list as well as Genestealers, Orks and more.

In the case of Khorne Berzerkers and Genestealers it STILL isn't somehow magically "the edition's fault". It's the fault of the Codices for not giving them some sort of loophole, whether that be Genestealers that are allowed to assault from outflanking or Berzerkers that can assault from any vehicle. Orks are fair enough, they haven't gotten a new Codex since 6th, so their problems are due to the edition changing, but the others are Codex failures.

WHY, for the love of God, should each army have to have a loophole to get around the rules in the main rulebook??? Why would it not make more sense to balance out the main rules so that assault has a fair opportunity to be effective?

All this does is clog up the game with more and more miscellaneous rules.

Player 1: "Okay, you're assaulting my Tau, I get to Overwatch."
Player 2: "No, my Templars have Knight Visage, they get to attack before you can Overwatch."
Player 2: "Oh, well then I guess I'll never get to overwatch again".

EDIT: I should clarify, I very much like the Templars. But I feel these suggestions just come across as special snowflake syndrome and ignore the greater systemic issues that 40k faces in terms of making assaulty armies competitive.

Sometimes, it's easier to balance the game by making everything overpowered and over the top.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).


/endrant

Look, tbh the crusader buff is much better for us. I hated how the old codex worked, a shooty army was no fun. I tried to play my Templars as an assault force, and it worked on occasion, but to be consistently good I needed to play a shooting army. Now, while Crusader ist great, at least it encourages a more assault-oriented play style. What I really miss are the vows. Yes, they were overpowered, but it was still what made the bt stand out. Its like taking away the AOF'S from the sisters.

That's what I really want to see in a supplement- some form of vow.

BT vows overpowered?

Keep telling yourself that while my 2++ rerollable iron armed, warp speeded daemon prince sweeps your army or yet another taudar list makes MEQ players cry.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
That isn't the army's fault as much as the edition's fault.

bs. BT got a bunch of rubbish rules and more or less nothing to support getting into melee, so they can't. That's the army's fault, not the edition. They could easily have gotten something to help them be faster than the measly buff Crusader provides (say, something like Righteous Zeal...), something to help neuter shooting or something to let them consolidate into combat once per turn, that they didn't isn't the fault of the edition, it's the fault of Codex: Space Marines, and it's (IMO) the root cause of why so many of us BT players are so upset. When we say it's "not BT" anymore it's because the army doesn't play anything near like what it used to (or, well, not if you want to have a chance of winning).


/endrant

Look, tbh the crusader buff is much better for us. I hated how the old codex worked, a shooty army was no fun. I tried to play my Templars as an assault force, and it worked on occasion, but to be consistently good I needed to play a shooting army. Now, while Crusader ist great, at least it encourages a more assault-oriented play style. What I really miss are the vows. Yes, they were overpowered, but it was still what made the bt stand out. Its like taking away the AOF'S from the sisters.

That's what I really want to see in a supplement- some form of vow.

The thing is, Crusader is much worse than Righteous Zeal, so I'm not sure why you feel that there's more incentive to play Templars assaulty now, especially with the loss of Rage.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Digital dex or no, Sisters still play like they always has. Orks still haven't waited as long as BT had to in order to get a new Codex, and I'm not seeing anyone telling Orks to stop wanting better rules just because Tyranids, that other horde-centric Xenos Codex, got a new update. All those other Marine Chapter updates mean squat (pun intended) to someone who wants to play BT because they don't play the same. Sure, I could switch to playing some other Marine army (leading to a bunch of useless models just like for everyone else), but it wouldn't be the army I want to play, the army whose playstyle got me into the game in the first place.

Plus, the whole part where Sisters and Orks still have Codices, whereas BT don't.

Firstly, BT still have their rules in the Space Marine codex, they weren't thrown out in the trash never to be seen again. Sisters armies play the same way because they've never even had that many different units to actually encourage different builds.

And of course nobody is telling Ork players not to want better rules, that's not the issue. Ork players *probably* want a new edition, but I also don't see a thread called "Are Orks really dead?" proclaiming them to be left with the refuse.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Ideally I'd agree with you, but when the rulebook's overly restrictive it's no good sitting around for an entire edition going "well shucks, them's the rules".

That's in fact what happens to every other army that is not Space Marines. We're all stuck with the builds we felt made our army play "correctly" which have become non-viable and we have to come up with some new plan.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:How many of those allow for the playstyle that was up until recently allowed by Codex: Black Templars? Plus, you're again assuming that I'm interested in playing "Space Marines, any variation" instead of "Black Templars".

I know you want to play BT, and I don't have any issue with that. I just think that:

(a) BT can be played effectively with the Space Marines codex. If you're upset that one Space Marine build has a better version of what you want, that's how it has always been for Space Marines. That's why you see people jumping from new chapter to the new chapter, because each one typically has the best of a particular variation (i.e. bikes, assault troops, shooting, etc.)

(b) Making BT effective in close combat by effectively ignoring the rules of the main rulebook just clutters the game up that much more. I'd much rather see a fix to the main rulebook rather than a supplement that allows Templars to negate main rules so they can be awesome in CC, which makes no sense in the fluff (why are their marines so much better at CC than others?) and dumps on every other non-Space Marine army that supposedly is just as good at CC at BT.

Kain wrote:Sometimes, it's easier to balance the game by making everything overpowered and over the top.

/sigh, I mean I guess, and it may be true that this balances the game, but I feel like there is just such a glut of superfluous rules and playing a simple game becomes frustratingly complex

EDIT: trying to clean up all that quoting

Yeah, your right. However, zeal is gone. I miss it, but its done. So I have to work with what I have. Crusader allows BT squads to get those extra few inches of movement, which considering the small charge range is very important in this edition. And, to an extent, zeal was pretty overpowered. I mean, if freakin geanstealers lost their ability to charge after outflanking, I can understand why we lost it.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, I am not saying that BT should be better than anyone else in CC. I just want them to be viable in it. It breaks my heart to see all these shooty Templar lists. Yes, its effective, but it also contradicts the reason I love them- they fight face-to-face with their enemies. No more effectively than anyone else, mind you, but that's just the way they work.

They just made sure that BT will get an update every edition with all the latest toys available to the Astartes. I can't see how much more live you could hope for.

 Accolade wrote:


That's in fact what happens to every other army that is not Space Marines. We're all stuck with the builds we felt made our army play "correctly" which have become non-viable and we have to come up with some new plan.

It's happening to Marines too, I'm saying it shouldn't happen to anyone. Genestealers should have some sort of way of getting into assault other than having rely on their 5+ armour save, for example.

 Accolade wrote:
(a) BT can be played effectively with the Space Marines codex. If you're upset that one Space Marine build has a better version of what you want, that's how it has always been for Space Marines. That's why you see people jumping from new chapter to the new chapter, because each one typically has the best of a particular variation (i.e. bikes, assault troops, shooting, etc.)

The thing is, they arguably can't, it depends on how you define "playing BT effectively". If you mean that I can play an army painted as Black Templars and still have a competetive army using the Space Marine Codex I'd agree, because White Scar Bike lists and Tigurius Gravstars are pretty decent. If we take the more reasonable (IMO) definition of "playing BT effectively" as "playing with the BT rules in C:SM to make an effective army that follows the fluff of the BT" then the answer's probably no, just as World Eaters and Genestealer-centric lists are outta luck this edition.

Codex jumping isn't even really possible as Black Templars, because no one else does the whole "angry tide of Zealots" thing (and no one does dedicated Drop Pod Assaults better than anyone else IMO). The closest you get is Khorne Berzerkers, who are stuck in the same situation.

 Accolade wrote:


(b) Making BT effective in close combat by effectively ignoring the rules of the main rulebook just clutters the game up that much more. I'd much rather see a fix to the main rulebook rather than a supplement that allows Templars to negate main rules so they can be awesome in CC, which makes no sense in the fluff (why are their marines so much better at CC than others?) and dumps on every other non-Space Marine army that supposedly is just as good at CC at BT.

I'd much rather see a rulebook fix as well, but I'd ALSO like to not have to sit around for yet another edition of being meaningless competetively. As for why BT are better than others at CC, why are Imperial Fists better with Bolters than everyone else? Why are Iron Hands hardier than others? Why are Salamanders better at using Flamers than anyone else? Because it's their thing, it's what they do. CC is what the BT do. Ideally (in my mind at least) BT and BA would be the two melee-centric specialists with BA focusing on speed and local superiority whereas BT are about a subtle as a sledgehammer.

Jefffar wrote:
They just made sure that BT will get an update every edition with all the latest toys available to the Astartes. I can't see how much more live you could hope for.

None of that matters when all the toys are for a playstyle that isn't BT in the first place. Unless GW makes C:SM capable of fielding powerful melee-centric lists all the shooty stuff just serves to further frustrate those of us who picked BT because we wanted to play a melee army (which I'm guessing is a bunch, if not the majority, of us BT players).

All I collect are marines, and even I think having six Codices devoted to men in power armor is a little excessive. I know people hate on dataslates a lot but I think they're a great idea for providing that extra edge of special snowflake that people want without getting too absurd. And I think they play quite differently, too...

For example, I think someone running Iron Hands chapter tactics (with their supplement) runs a list that is as appreciably different from vanilla marines than a Blood or Dark angels army...

 Accolade wrote:

Kain wrote:Sometimes, it's easier to balance the game by making everything overpowered and over the top.

/sigh, I mean I guess, and it may be true that this balances the game, but I feel like there is just such a glut of superfluous rules and playing a simple game becomes frustratingly complex

EDIT: trying to clean up all that quoting

I wouldn't be worried about 40k becoming increasingly over the top until five editions down the line, a unit pops up with a weapon that specifies that they're taking a galaxy and throwing it as a shuriken Gurren Lagaan style.

 Colpicklejar wrote:

For example, I think someone running Iron Hands chapter tactics (with their supplement) runs a list that is as appreciably different from vanilla marines than a Blood or Dark angels army...

This right here cuts to the heart of the issue, in a way.

How do you build a competetive list that capitalizes on Chapter Tactics: Black Templars?

Well, to start off, you can't build around Adamantium Will. Crusader adds, on average, around 0.89" of movement per turn IIRC, and running across the field with melee units would take more than an extra 0.89" movement, so that doesn't work either.

Rerolls and rending in Challenges is decent, but again nothing you can base your entire strategy on. It's pretty fluffy, but would it really have broken the game to just give us our damn rerolls from 5th edition back? Even if it was only Hatred, it'd still have done something to help us actually be good at CC.

That leaves the Crusader Squad. No other Chapter Tactics gets 5-man Lasplas squads and no other Chapter Tactics can field scoring Assault Marines on foot. The only problem is, Assault Marines are rubbish, scoring or not, jumping or not.

That leaves Templars with a Chapter Tactics that lets them spam shooty MSU MEQ Troops better than anyone else. All the stuff that BT are supposedly good at in fluff is slightly less rubbish than everyone else's, while the only good part is something that'd have been pretty cool in 5th edition (indeed, the old Lasplas squad held up rather decently through 5th) but which in 6th edition's shooty meta doesn't do nearly well enough, while at the same time running completely countrary to the fluff.

Some of us didnt want to play vanilla, we wanted our own identity, and latched onto the playstyle and fluff of Black Templars. Now that theyre vanilla plus with altered fluff what is the point? Its not what I paid for, and for me this is a business relationship.

Some people wanted to play with the Holy Orb of Antioch, which is totally not a ripoff from the cult of Cegorach. I mean Monty Python.

Templars were pretty vanilla to start with, and even their codex was fairly vanilla at the time it came out.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Templars were pretty vanilla to start with, and even their codex was fairly vanilla at the time it came out.

Yeah, except for the parts that weren't, the parts that made the difference in playstyle.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Colpicklejar wrote:

For example, I think someone running Iron Hands chapter tactics (with their supplement) runs a list that is as appreciably different from vanilla marines than a Blood or Dark angels army...

This right here cuts to the heart of the issue, in a way.

How do you build a competetive list that capitalizes on Chapter Tactics: Black Templars?

Well, to start off, you can't build around Adamantium Will. Crusader adds, on average, around 0.89" of movement per turn IIRC, and running across the field with melee units would take more than an extra 0.89" movement, so that doesn't work either.

Rerolls and rending in Challenges is decent, but again nothing you can base your entire strategy on. It's pretty fluffy, but would it really have broken the game to just give us our damn rerolls from 5th edition back? Even if it was only Hatred, it'd still have done something to help us actually be good at CC.

That leaves the Crusader Squad. No other Chapter Tactics gets 5-man Lasplas squads and no other Chapter Tactics can field scoring Assault Marines on foot. The only problem is, Assault Marines are rubbish, scoring or not, jumping or not.

That leaves Templars with a Chapter Tactics that lets them spam shooty MSU MEQ Troops better than anyone else. All the stuff that BT are supposedly good at in fluff is slightly less rubbish than everyone else's, while the only good part is something that'd have been pretty cool in 5th edition (indeed, the old Lasplas squad held up rather decently through 5th) but which in 6th edition's shooty meta doesn't do nearly well enough, while at the same time running completely countrary to the fluff.

And that's exactly what's wrong with BT now. I don't want to run 5 man las/plas squads!
However, crusader squads with bp/cs may suck, but I still use them. They can be effective, if used right. a twenty man squad with no transport can attract a lot of firepower, after all. And having 2 attacks every round of combat is HUGE.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
And saying that black Templars are vanilla to begin with is like saying that sisters of battle are female space marines.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Sisters don't play anything like they used to.
At least we are still, basically, black space marines who like to hit things.

Huh? Sisters are still more or less the same in terms of playstyle, if we're comparing their 5e 'dex to their 6e one. Short-range shooting with an emphasis on meltas.

 Troike wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Sisters don't play anything like they used to.
At least we are still, basically, black space marines who like to hit things.

Huh? Sisters are still more or less the same in terms of playstyle, if we're comparing their 5e 'dex to their 6e one. Short-range shooting with an emphasis on meltas.

No, im talking pre fifth, back when inquisitorial troops was a thing

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Templars were pretty vanilla to start with, and even their codex was fairly vanilla at the time it came out.

Yeah, except for the parts that weren't, the parts that made the difference in playstyle.

There wasn't much, and save for Vows, the Holy Orb and the old Machine Spirit options, you still have everything else (namely Crusader Squads and DT Crusaders). Oh and your Chapter Master equiv got buffed, even if he's not called a Grand Marshall anymore.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
is like saying that sisters of battle are female space marines.

You mean they're not? Well dang, there goes that army idea...

 Happyjew wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
is like saying that sisters of battle are female space marines.

You mean they're not? Well dang, there goes that army idea...

Well, they have a whole distinct background and history, I mean. So just throwing them into, say, codex: Imperial Guard by putting a unit called battle sisters would make a lot of people angry. If were just unique space marines because we have vows, their just unique space marines because they have acts of faith.





I still love the Sob, though.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Templars were pretty vanilla to start with, and even their codex was fairly vanilla at the time it came out.

Yeah, except for the parts that weren't, the parts that made the difference in playstyle.

There wasn't much, and save for Vows, the Holy Orb and the old Machine Spirit options, you still have everything else (namely Crusader Squads and DT Crusaders). Oh and your Chapter Master equiv got buffed, even if he's not called a Grand Marshall anymore.

Righteous Zeal and the Vows is what made the army work the way it did (or well, almost work in 5th). It's like removing Mob Rule from Orks or Synapse from Tyranids. One rule change that completely changes the dynamic of the army.

Let's run with the Sisters example. Let's assume that GW decided to remove Codex: Adepta Sororitas and instead tell people to use their Sisters of Battle as Henchmen in the newly expanded Inquisition Codex (a plausible albeit unlikely scenario IMO). They'd lose their Acts of Faith and would have to pay 14 PPM for much worse than Tactical Marine stats and no ATSKNF. Do you think this'd upset Sisters of Battle players?

In fact, it's the same thing that happened to people who played Inquisitorial Stormtroopers back in the old DH Codex. Sure, when CH vanished you could still play them as Henchmen in C:GK, but they were much worse and didn't play the same way anymore, especially with the loss of allies (which is set to finally be rectified with the release of Codex: Stormtroopers).

Further, I'd argue that the CM equivalent is a side-grade at best. We could take a Marshal with TH/SS and pseudo-EW for 195 points in the old Codex. 1 Wound less and only WS5, but quite a bit cheaper than the current equivalent, and with more attacks on the charge (or, in 5th, rerolls to hit all the time!).

Chaplains bit the dust completely compared to the old Codex, the Emperor's Champion is a silly joke, Grimaldus is possibly worse than before (which is quite a feat), and Helbrecht is still a beatstick Chapter Master with an S4 AP3 weapon.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
is like saying that sisters of battle are female space marines.

You mean they're not? Well dang, there goes that army idea...

Well, they have a whole distinct background and history, I mean. So just throwing them into, say, codex: Imperial Guard by putting a unit called battle sisters would make a lot of people angry. If were just unique space marines because we have vows, their just unique space marines because they have acts of faith.





I still love the Sob, though.

It was supposed to be a joke.

Personally, seeing as how Blood Angels and Dark Angels are more like Vanilla Marines they should have been rolled into the codex with them. For example:
Chapter Tactics Blood Angels: Models with this rule have the Red Rage special rule. Vehicles from this detachment have the Fast Vehicle Type. Blood Angels treat Assault Marines as Troops.
Done. Dark Angels would be somewhat similar as well.

Black Templars were (and Space Wolves are) unique enough to warrant their own codex as they don't even come close to following the Codex Astartes.

as for saying Bts are "Dead" I think it's worth remembering that the Black Templars are a second founding Chapter.
when you compare the BTs to ANY other second founding chapter they're getting a TON of attention. they apper in a good number of novels. have their own chapter tactics, have 3 ICs in the SM codex.

yeah they no longer have their own codex now, but they're still definatly not forgotten

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Righteous Zeal and the Vows is what made the army work the way it did (or well, almost work in 5th). It's like removing Mob Rule from Orks or Synapse from Tyranids. One rule change that completely changes the dynamic of the army.

Vows were replaced Chapter Tactics, Righteous Zeal became Crusader. Yes it's different, but it's also a lot more balanced overall.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Let's run with the Sisters example. Let's assume that GW decided to remove Codex: Adepta Sororitas and instead tell people to use their Sisters of Battle as Henchmen in the newly expanded Inquisition Codex (a plausible albeit unlikely scenario IMO). They'd lose their Acts of Faith and would have to pay 14 PPM for much worse than Tactical Marine stats and no ATSKNF. Do you think this'd upset Sisters of Battle players?

You do know that Acts of Faith have already been toned down (twice in fact!), not unlike your Vows being toned down to chapter tactics.

Oh and your army has ATSKNF, one of the most unbalanced rules in the game, so your example hardly holds up as a comparison.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BrianDavion wrote:
as for saying Bts are "Dead" I think it's worth remembering that the Black Templars are a second founding Chapter.
when you compare the BTs to ANY other second founding chapter they're getting a TON of attention. they apper in a good number of novels. have their own chapter tactics, have 3 ICs in the SM codex.

yeah they no longer have their own codex now, but they're still definatly not forgotten

But they're not special enough! </sarcasm>

Seriously though, everytime a Black Templar player starts to complain about how bad they have it I want to chuck an Exorcist at them.

BrianDavion wrote:as for saying Bts are "Dead" I think it's worth remembering that the Black Templars are a second founding Chapter.
when you compare the BTs to ANY other second founding chapter they're getting a TON of attention. they apper in a good number of novels. have their own chapter tactics, have 3 ICs in the SM codex.

yeah they no longer have their own codex now, but they're still definatly not forgotten

That's true, however the only novel I know of that they get mentioned in (from recent years) is Helsreach. What are the others?

Happyjew wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
is like saying that sisters of battle are female space marines.

You mean they're not? Well dang, there goes that army idea...

Well, they have a whole distinct background and history, I mean. So just throwing them into, say, codex: Imperial Guard by putting a unit called battle sisters would make a lot of people angry. If were just unique space marines because we have vows, their just unique space marines because they have acts of faith.





I still love the Sob, though.

It was supposed to be a joke.

Personally, seeing as how Blood Angels and Dark Angels are more like Vanilla Marines they should have been rolled into the codex with them. For example:
Chapter Tactics Blood Angels: Models with this rule have the Red Rage special rule. Vehicles from this detachment have the Fast Vehicle Type. Blood Angels treat Assault Marines as Troops.
Done. Dark Angels would be somewhat similar as well.

Black Templars were (and Space Wolves are) unique enough to warrant their own codex as they don't even come close to following the Codex Astartes.

Yeah, you actually have a really good point there. But then again with only three marine codexes GW would lose money

And yeah, I know it was a joke(and pretty funny one at that), but I wanted to show what I meant a little better.





Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also, Im not saying we have it bad. As a sisters player, you have it bad(no offence), way worse off than we are!
And the nerf to AoF was really bad, but you still have them! Taking zeal from us is like taking AoF rules and turning them into an army wide rule: Hatred. Yes, it benefits a few of your units, but for the most part its useless, and will almost never see any use on your units.

Im not saying we have it bad, but we definitely have less than before.

BrianDavion wrote:
as for saying Bts are "Dead" I think it's worth remembering that the Black Templars are a second founding Chapter.
when you compare the BTs to ANY other second founding chapter they're getting a TON of attention. they apper in a good number of novels. have their own chapter tactics, have 3 ICs in the SM codex.

yeah they no longer have their own codex now, but they're still definatly not forgotten

Technically the Templars are the Imp Fists First Company and were only forced to split by the Guilliman Heresy. They have been around since the Great Crusade (the Templar Cross denotes a Great Crusade veteran on IF heraldtry).

 d3m01iti0n wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
as for saying Bts are "Dead" I think it's worth remembering that the Black Templars are a second founding Chapter.
when you compare the BTs to ANY other second founding chapter they're getting a TON of attention. they apper in a good number of novels. have their own chapter tactics, have 3 ICs in the SM codex.

yeah they no longer have their own codex now, but they're still definatly not forgotten

Technically the Templars are the Imp Fists First Company and were only forced to split by the Guilliman Heresy. They have been around since the Great Crusade (the Templar Cross denotes a Great Crusade veteran on IF heraldtry).

They still count as a second founding chapter as they split into a new chapter at that point. All second founding chapters were formed in part from their parent Legions, so that doesn't make the BT unique honestly.

While I don't care if their a 1st or 2nd founding chapter, they still deserve rules that reflect their preferred method of fighting.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Righteous Zeal and the Vows is what made the army work the way it did (or well, almost work in 5th). It's like removing Mob Rule from Orks or Synapse from Tyranids. One rule change that completely changes the dynamic of the army.

Vows were replaced Chapter Tactics, Righteous Zeal became Crusader. Yes it's different, but it's also a lot more balanced overall.

"Balanced" and "different" are not synonyms for "worse". The minimum range you get from movement these days is 7" (6" move + 1" run). WIth RZ, the minimum was 8 (6" move, 1" run, 1" Zeal), and while that was dependant on your enemy shooting you, Crusader Seals let you reroll Zeal moves, meaning you moved an average of 6"+3.5"+~3.71" for a total of ~13.21". With the current Codex, you'll get 6"+~4.48"=~10.48" movement, which is almost 3" lower. In the max example, it gets even more lopsided, where the current maximum is 12" and the old 21" (with Cenobyte Servitors, otherwise 18"). How is that more "balanced"? How is rerolls in Challenges more "balanced" than rerolls all the time?

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:

BrianDavion wrote:
as for saying Bts are "Dead" I think it's worth remembering that the Black Templars are a second founding Chapter.
when you compare the BTs to ANY other second founding chapter they're getting a TON of attention. they apper in a good number of novels. have their own chapter tactics, have 3 ICs in the SM codex.

yeah they no longer have their own codex now, but they're still definatly not forgotten

Technically the Templars are the Imp Fists First Company and were only forced to split by the Guilliman Heresy. They have been around since the Great Crusade (the Templar Cross denotes a Great Crusade veteran on IF heraldtry).

They still count as a second founding chapter as they split into a new chapter at that point. All second founding chapters were formed in part from their parent Legions, so that doesn't make the BT unique honestly.

They're just as much the Imperial Fists Legion as the Imperial Fists Chapter is. Both were formed from the Imperial Fists Legion, but the Legion is not the same entity as the Chapter of the same name.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
. How is that more "balanced"? How is rerolls in Challenges more "balanced" than rerolls all the time?

<---- Played Black Templars since 2008.

50 points for rerolling every to-hit in close combat with everyone was too cheap, man. WAY too cheap. Let that one go.

 kronk wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
. How is that more "balanced"? How is rerolls in Challenges more "balanced" than rerolls all the time?

<---- Played Black Templars since 2008.

50 points for rerolling every to-hit in close combat with everyone was too cheap, man. WAY too cheap. Let that one go.

Not to mention it was the only one anyone wanted to use, even when it became Rage at the start of 6th.

 kronk wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
. How is that more "balanced"? How is rerolls in Challenges more "balanced" than rerolls all the time?

<---- Played Black Templars since 2008.

50 points for rerolling every to-hit in close combat with everyone was too cheap, man. WAY too cheap. Let that one go.

Technically you had to overpay for the Emperor's Champion as well, but whatever.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 kronk wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
. How is that more "balanced"? How is rerolls in Challenges more "balanced" than rerolls all the time?

<---- Played Black Templars since 2008.

50 points for rerolling every to-hit in close combat with everyone was too cheap, man. WAY too cheap. Let that one go.

Not to mention it was the only one anyone wanted to use, even when it became Rage at the start of 6th.

Probably because the other ones were pretty crap TBH. Giving up Initiative for Strength and paying for the privilege was pretty pointless, giving everyone a 6++ in exchange for no cover saves and paying for the privilege was downright awful and paying to maybe possibly sometimes give sort-of Scouts to the entire army was pretty shoddy as well. That leaves the one Vow that did something.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
Righteous Zeal and the Vows is what made the army work the way it did (or well, almost work in 5th). It's like removing Mob Rule from Orks or Synapse from Tyranids. One rule change that completely changes the dynamic of the army.

Vows were replaced Chapter Tactics, Righteous Zeal became Crusader. Yes it's different, but it's also a lot more balanced overall.

"Balanced" and "different" are not synonyms for "worse". The minimum range you get from movement these days is 7" (6" move + 1" run). WIth RZ, the minimum was 8 (6" move, 1" run, 1" Zeal), and while that was dependant on your enemy shooting you, Crusader Seals let you reroll Zeal moves, meaning you moved an average of 6"+3.5"+~3.71" for a total of ~13.21". With the current Codex, you'll get 6"+~4.48"=~10.48" movement, which is almost 3" lower. In the max example, it gets even more lopsided, where the current maximum is 12" and the old 21" (with Cenobyte Servitors, otherwise 18"). How is that more "balanced"? How is rerolls in Challenges more "balanced" than rerolls all the time?

Re-rolls all the time was too powerful, especially since we had access to 5 man teams and tank-hunting termies. As much as I loved it, I will admit that it was a bit much. However, instead of finding a way to fix this, we were just given nothing. Orks have furious charge, Blood Angels have all kinds of fun stuff, dark elder have pain tokens, and now we have nothing. It feels like our special rule- the ones that mattered- are gone.

Makumba wrote:
Not realy . the sob didn't lose much . BT lost a lot . 2 heavy weapons in 5 man terminator squads and veteran skills. Machine spirit vindicators . Sure they can now take all the stuff marines take , but taking those marine options doesn't use the models people who bought BT have and those options still work better using other chapter rules . If BT don't have divination and their biker list is weaker then the WS&IH one , then they are as good as dead.

If sob suddenly lost exorcists and dominions , but instead could take cultists squads , then it maybe could have been the same . thing.

So, are you new to this game ? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about ?

Those things you lost are just the basic changes we see in every new edition of any codex. EVERY. NEW. CODEX. EVER. The number of weapons in 5 women dominion squads changed in the last Sisters of Battle codex too. But wait, there is more. Did you know during our last update, a whole type of generic HQ just disappeared ? How is that in any way comparable to loosing “2 heavy weapons in 5 man terminator squads” ?
Actually, your only problem is that black templar are not the more competitive choice out there. Here is a scoop for you : neither is Sisters of Battle, we are actually in a way worse position.
Enjoy your flyers, your plastic miniatures, your many dozens of unit types…

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

Makumba wrote:
Not realy . the sob didn't lose much . BT lost a lot . 2 heavy weapons in 5 man terminator squads and veteran skills. Machine spirit vindicators . Sure they can now take all the stuff marines take , but taking those marine options doesn't use the models people who bought BT have and those options still work better using other chapter rules . If BT don't have divination and their biker list is weaker then the WS&IH one , then they are as good as dead.

If sob suddenly lost exorcists and dominions , but instead could take cultists squads , then it maybe could have been the same . thing.

So, are you new to this game ? Do you have any idea of what you are talking about ?

Those things you lost are just the basic changes we see in every new edition of any codex. EVERY. NEW. CODEX. EVER. The number of weapons in 5 women dominion squads changed in the last Sisters of Battle codex too. But wait, there is more. Did you know during our last update, a whole type of generic HQ just disappeared ? How is that in any way comparable to loosing “2 heavy weapons in 5 man terminator squads” ?
Actually, your only problem is that black templar are not the more competitive choice out there. Here is a scoop for you : neither is Sisters of Battle, we are actually in a way worse position.
Enjoy your flyers, your plastic miniatures, your many dozens of unit types…

Exalted for truth.

I hate to admit it, but the sisters players above this post do have a point. However, Makumba does kind of have a good point: while we do have new, plastic (heck, even metal) models, the unique rules that separated the BT from every other flavor of marines are gone.

Let me ask you this, ClockWorkZion-
Why do you play SoB? Is it the cool rules, the interesting fluff, or the unique (albeit pewter) models? I play Black Templars because of all of the above. And now, my cool rules are gone, my interesting fluff is changed (worship the emperor? WTF?) and my cool models are no longer represented.
Yeah, you guys have it way worse than us, no doubt, but at least you have a unique army. We have little more than black marines with chainswords.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
And please understand I meant no offense!

Models and fluff.

If I played for the rules I have the wrong army (well armies now that I'm building a MoK heavy Crimson Slaughter army too).

Black Templars may be my favorite army, but sisters do have, imop, the best backround of any army. Ad the models, while old, are pretty impressive. Im actually considering running them as allies.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
bbbc1bce3b.jpg]No, im talking pre fifth, back when inquisitorial troops was a thing

I suppose that's technically true, yeah. Though the Witch Hunters codex was also basically the Sisters sharing a codex with another faction.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
(worship the emperor? WTF?)

Just out of curiosity, was this ever specifically stated to not be the case? Throughout their existence, the Templars have displayed extreme zeal and heavy trappings of religion. The fluff behind the Emperor's Champion, for example, is extremely religious. To me, saying that they worship big E seems to fit in with how they were previously.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Black Templars may be my favorite army, but sisters do have, imop, the best backround of any army. Ad the models, while old, are pretty impressive. Im actually considering running them as allies.

Not Battle Brothers, but at least your not punished for pairing them anymore.

As for the BT fluff change, that was previously something I saw attributed to the Templars a lot so it's possible that it's something that the Dev team heard, liked and gave to them. There are other chapters who see the Emperor as a kind of a god so it's not like they're out in left field alone, plus with how the Emperor's Champion works (the visions thing) they just have the evidence they need to push that idea (in my opinion at least).

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
(worship the emperor? WTF?)

Just out of curiosity, was this ever specifically stated to not be the case? Throughout their existence, the Templars have displayed extreme zeal and heavy trappings of religion. The fluff behind the Emperor's Champion, for example, is extremely religious. To me, saying that they worship big E seems to fit in with how they were previously.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:

I dunno, maybe im being petty, but that change just felt like a slap in the face

I don't know, you could have been completely squatted instead of getting shifted over into a heavily supported codex. I just stick with trying to look at the positive when it comes to the way GW handles some of the armies...

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Black Templars may be my favorite army, but sisters do have, imop, the best backround of any army. Ad the models, while old, are pretty impressive. Im actually considering running them as allies.

Not Battle Brothers, but at least your not punished for pairing them anymore.

As for the BT fluff change, that was previously something I saw attributed to the Templars a lot so it's possible that it's something that the Dev team heard, liked and gave to them. There are other chapters who see the Emperor as a kind of a god so it's not like they're out in left field alone, plus with how the Emperor's Champion works (the visions thing) they just have the evidence they need to push that idea (in my opinion at least).

Eh, perhaps your right. It certainly does give their cries of FOR DA EMPRAH a new meaning!

Aad the relationship between the BT and the SoB is not "desperate allies"! Read the SM codex and it actually says that they go to war together constantly, and are best buds! Heck, now that the emperor is a god we have even more reason to fight together. So allies chart be damned, Im gonna do it.

Maybe for them "One Eye Open" is more of a friendly rivalry over who gets to smite the next Heretic?

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
And now, my cool rules are gone, my interesting fluff is changed (worship the emperor? WTF?) and my cool models are no longer represented.

I can sympathize with that, but I am not sure what you mean by your cool models being not represented anymore. Is that about that model of serf carrying some kind of column or something ? Fluff changes can be pretty uncool. As for the rules, well, I hope a change of edition will allow you to field some big crusade units and still be competitive.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Black Templars may be my favorite army, but sisters do have, imop, the best backround of any army. Ad the models, while old, are pretty impressive. Im actually considering running them as allies.

Not Battle Brothers, but at least your not punished for pairing them anymore.

As for the BT fluff change, that was previously something I saw attributed to the Templars a lot so it's possible that it's something that the Dev team heard, liked and gave to them. There are other chapters who see the Emperor as a kind of a god so it's not like they're out in left field alone, plus with how the Emperor's Champion works (the visions thing) they just have the evidence they need to push that idea (in my opinion at least).

Eh, perhaps your right. It certainly does give their cries of FOR DA EMPRAH a new meaning!

Aad the relationship between the BT and the SoB is not "desperate allies"! Read the SM codex and it actually says that they go to war together constantly, and are best buds! Heck, now that the emperor is a god we have even more reason to fight together. So allies chart be damned, Im gonna do it.

I always thought that the BT were the more likely to be full blown Emperor worshipers and now its confirmed.

Given that GW no longer include the BT as a seperate line on the latest Codex Ally Martrices - I can't see the argument holding that you still use the old line in the BRB, dubious as it always was (and totally agains the actual fluff - old and current)

At least BT managed to keep a Special Character or two - Iron Hands (an actual 1st Founding Chapter) have had a Supplement and still have not got a single one...............its not much I guess but.............

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Aad the relationship between the BT and the SoB is not "desperate allies"! Read the SM codex and it actually says that they go to war together constantly, and are best buds! Heck, now that the emperor is a god we have even more reason to fight together. So allies chart be damned, Im gonna do it.

Yep they change the fluff so they are the best of buds but still are Desperate Allies. Go figure.

Actually I think Mr Morden nailed it: there is no BT slot on any allies charts posted post C:SM so we can cross that off the list as being an issue anymore.

That or we'd have to limit BT from allying with Inquisition (I could see that one), Legion of the Damned, and Imperial Knights as there aren't rules for them to ally to them otherwise.

Per the codex anything that refers to C: Black Templar (like the BRB Allies Matrix) now refers to SM with Black Templar Chapter Tactics.

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Yes, it was the case. In fact, in the book Heslreach the main character flat out denies it, and accuses those who do of being weak. And while the champion may seem religious, he is moreso a pious warrior than a paladin. I dunno, maybe im being petty, but that change just felt like a slap in the face

Ah, but you see, Black Library fluff and Codex fluff don't always like up. Authors get a lot of freedom with 40K, and canon isn't enforced too tightly. So Dembski-Bowden's Templars don't have to quite line up with what's written in the codex, as may have been the case here (and, truth to be told, I vastly prefer the 6E Marine codex's version of how the Templars approach faith and the faithful as opposed to this BL version).

To rephrase my question, then, did their actual codex ever specifically say that they didnt worship the Emperor as a god?

 Happyjew wrote:
Per the codex anything that refers to C: Black Templar (like the BRB Allies Matrix) now refers to SM with Black Templar Chapter Tactics.

Yeah the BT Entry on the matrix is gone.............as shown in the most conclusive way by the most recent Codexes.

re the Belief of the BT'sin Helsreach - direct quote:

"In my presence, you have just expressed the notion that the Emperor of Mankind is not your god, as He is for the entire glorious Imperium. Whilst I am not blind to the ..separatist elements within the Mechanicus, the fact remains you are speaking heresy before a Reclusiarch of the Emperor's Chosen"

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Happyjew wrote:
Per the codex anything that refers to C: Black Templar (like the BRB Allies Matrix) now refers to SM with Black Templar Chapter Tactics.

Yeah the BT Entry on the matrix is gone.............as shown in the most conclusive way by the most recent Codexes.

Exactly. Either the BT don't have an allies chart slot anymore or they're strangely missing from any codex that has an allies chart and that doesn't make nearly as much sense.

When using the new mini-dexes (LotD, =I=, and Imp Knights), you use the SM entry (as there is no "Black Templar"). When using regular codices, you use the allies matrix as presented in the BRB. Since that Matrix references C: BT, you instead treat that single column as C: SM (CT BT).

 Happyjew wrote:
When using the new mini-dexes (LotD, =I=, and Imp Knights), you use the SM entry (as there is no "Black Templar"). When using regular codices, you use the allies matrix as presented in the BRB. Since that Matrix references C: BT, you instead treat that single column as C: SM (CT BT).

"But that's not RAW"!

Sorry, I had to get that out of the way.

It's stuff like that I keep pestering GW FAQs about but they don't seem too interested in putting out FAQs right now (which prompted me to send the biggest FAQ I've seen lately: when are we getting another update?).

 Happyjew wrote:
When using the new mini-dexes (LotD, =I=, and Imp Knights), you use the SM entry (as there is no "Black Templar"). When using regular codices, you use the allies matrix as presented in the BRB. Since that Matrix references C: BT, you instead treat that single column as C: SM (CT BT).

Why ?

I don''t see the point in anyone clinging to this controversial view? The BRB Matrix is horribly against the actual fluff - If the new Astra M (Imperial Guard) does not have them listed - its another nail in the confin (thank the Emperor)

Personally, I don't care. Unfortunately I spend too much time in YMDC I tend to take a RAW viewpoint, whether or not I play that way.

 Happyjew wrote:
Personally, I don't care. Unfortunately I spend too much time in YMDC I tend to take a RAW viewpoint, whether or not I play that way.

Except RAW doesn't support giving an army allies when it doesn't have an entry on the chart....

You know, reading these posts makes me realize that we don't have it so bad! Worshipping the emperor actually fits us, in a strange way. And it certainly simplifies how BT roll! And as for the allies chart, while at first the loss of BT on it was frustrating, honestly using the c: sm matrix works better fluff-wise thatn our original chart. Figures

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
You know, reading these posts makes me realize that we don't have it so bad! Worshipping the emperor actually fits us, in a strange way. And it certainly simplifies how BT roll! And as for the allies chart, while at first the loss of BT on it was frustrating, honestly using the c: sm matrix works better fluff-wise thatn our original chart. Figures

Now you just need to convert the other 80,000 BT players who are still running around saying that the current situation is the worst thing that could have happened to the book!

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
You know, reading these posts makes me realize that we don't have it so bad! Worshipping the emperor actually fits us, in a strange way. And it certainly simplifies how BT roll! And as for the allies chart, while at first the loss of BT on it was frustrating, honestly using the c: sm matrix works better fluff-wise thatn our original chart. Figures

Now you just need to convert the other 80,000 BT players who are still running around saying that the current situation is the worst thing that could have happened to the book!

One at a time, my friend, one at a time..

Helsreach made me look at the Black Templars in a new light and even buy a small army of them

Templars are a Marine army I've considered a few times. If I ever decide to start a loyalist Marine army they are on a very short list of possibilities.

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Templars are a Marine army I've considered a few times. If I ever decide to start a loyalist Marine army they are on a very short list of possibilities.

Well, look on the bright side: no matter what you pick, it'll be in plastic

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Templars are a Marine army I've considered a few times. If I ever decide to start a loyalist Marine army they are on a very short list of possibilities.

Well, look on the bright side: no matter what you pick, it'll be in plastic

True. But on the flip side I can't beat muggers to death with my army!

Well maybe with CSM I can, all those spikes could cause bleeding afterall....

Those are uhh...devotional spikes, to show that the Marine is deeply devoted to the Emperor.

 Mr Morden wrote:

"In my presence, you have just expressed the notion that the Emperor of Mankind is not your god, as He is for the entire glorious Imperium. Whilst I am not blind to the ..separatist elements within the Mechanicus, the fact remains you are speaking heresy before a Reclusiarch of the Emperor's Chosen"

Black Templars have never really been anything more than Las/Plas squads, on the tabletop.

Their most optimized list was a gunline.

 Troike wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:
Yes, it was the case. In fact, in the book Heslreach the main character flat out denies it, and accuses those who do of being weak. And while the champion may seem religious, he is moreso a pious warrior than a paladin. I dunno, maybe im being petty, but that change just felt like a slap in the face

Ah, but you see, Black Library fluff and Codex fluff don't always like up. Authors get a lot of freedom with 40K, and canon isn't enforced too tightly. So Dembski-Bowden's Templars don't have to quite line up with what's written in the codex, as may have been the case here (and, truth to be told, I vastly prefer the 6E Marine codex's version of how the Templars approach faith and the faithful as opposed to this BL version).

To rephrase my question, then, did their actual codex ever specifically say that they didnt worship the Emperor as a god?

More like there is no canon because GW can't be assed to make one.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Black Templars have never really been anything more than Las/Plas squads, on the tabletop.

Their most optimized list was a gunline.

Except for in 4th edition. You know, the edition the Codex was written for.

 Troike wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

"In my presence, you have just expressed the notion that the Emperor of Mankind is not your god, as He is for the entire glorious Imperium. Whilst I am not blind to the ..separatist elements within the Mechanicus, the fact remains you are speaking heresy before a Reclusiarch of the Emperor's Chosen"

Wait, so this quote's implying that that book does have them regarding the Emperor as a god?

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its pretty clear from this quote - delivered to a senior commander of a Ttian legion, inside her Imperator Titan no less, and other throuhgout the book that they worship the Emperor.

Huh. Well, 1d4chan is claiming that the sequel to that book, called Blood and Fire and also written by Dembski-Bowden, has Grimaldus specifically denying that they worship him. Maybe an oversight on ADB's part, or just 1d4chan being wrong? Meh, regardless, I'l stick to the codex fluff all the same.

1d4Chan is often wrong. The attribute Ward to writing about Sisters dying constantly but can only offer the one instance where he did kill them: the Blood Tide.

This is what happens when angry neckbeards run wikis.

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Black Templars have never really been anything more than Las/Plas squads, on the tabletop.

Their most optimized list was a gunline.

Congratulations, a completely uninformed opinion. This is why you do homework before opening your mouth, to avoid looking stupid.

 Troike wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its pretty clear from this quote - delivered to a senior commander of a Ttian legion, inside her Imperator Titan no less, and other throuhgout the book that they worship the Emperor.

Huh. Well, 1d4chan is claiming that the sequel to that book, called Blood and Fire and also written by Dembski-Bowden, has Grimaldus specifically denying that they worship him. Maybe an oversight on ADB's part, or just 1d4chan being wrong? Meh, regardless, I'l stick to the codex fluff all the same.

I'd ask for quotes that contradict the one given

I have not got Blood and Fire so can't help there.................

 ClockworkZion wrote:
1d4Chan is often wrong. The attribute Ward to writing about Sisters dying constantly but can only offer the one instance where he did kill them: the Blood Tide.

This is what happens when angry neckbeards run wikis.

I wonder if they are also trying to blame the Sanctuary 101 thing on him too since he did the latest Necron codex, and they conveniently forgot that it's really old fluff

nobody wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
1d4Chan is often wrong. The attribute Ward to writing about Sisters dying constantly but can only offer the one instance where he did kill them: the Blood Tide.

This is what happens when angry neckbeards run wikis.

I wonder if they are also trying to blame the Sanctuary 101 thing on him too since he did the latest Necron codex, and they conveniently forgot that it's really old fluff

Probably. Mindless hate tends to override common sense and fact.

Dead, no but I think they got weaker.

The issue I felt they had was they had nothing uniquely theirs to stand out from other chapters. Sure having all the nice shooting options of codex following chapters is nice, but they don't feel like horde of angry crusaders. Hopefully the rumored supplement will fix this so that my Emperor's Champion doesn't become a display piece

 d3m01iti0n wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Black Templars have never really been anything more than Las/Plas squads, on the tabletop.

Their most optimized list was a gunline.

Congratulations, a completely uninformed opinion. This is why you do homework before opening your mouth, to avoid looking stupid.

I'm right and you're wrong, though.

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Black Templars have never really been anything more than Las/Plas squads, on the tabletop.

Their most optimized list was a gunline.

Congratulations, a completely uninformed opinion. This is why you do homework before opening your mouth, to avoid looking stupid.

I'm right and you're wrong, though.

No

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Black Templars have never really been anything more than Las/Plas squads, on the tabletop.

Their most optimized list was a gunline.

Congratulations, a completely uninformed opinion. This is why you do homework before opening your mouth, to avoid looking stupid.

I'm right and you're wrong, though.

Citation required. Simply saying you are right without backing up your statement is no way to argue.

I know during 5th BT basically became a shooting army (especially at the end), but I can't speak for 4th as much.

 Happyjew wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:

 d3m01iti0n wrote:

 BlaxicanX wrote:
Black Templars have never really been anything more than Las/Plas squads, on the tabletop.

Their most optimized list was a gunline.

Congratulations, a completely uninformed opinion. This is why you do homework before opening your mouth, to avoid looking stupid.

I'm right and you're wrong, though.

Citation required. Simply saying you are right without backing up your statement is no way to argue.

Neither is saying "hurr do ur homework".

Hence my equally childish response.

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Templars are a Marine army I've considered a few times. If I ever decide to start a loyalist Marine army they are on a very short list of possibilities.

Well, look on the bright side: no matter what you pick, it'll be in plastic

True. But on the flip side I can't beat muggers to death with my army!

Well maybe with CSM I can, all those spikes could cause bleeding afterall....

No things in this world has drawn more of my blood than my CSM army.

It's almost depressing. Not even when I fell off my bike did I bleed more than what my CSMs have taken from me.

But Khorne cares not from where the blood flows...

 BrotherHaraldus wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:

 BlackTemplar1 wrote:

 ClockworkZion wrote:
Templars are a Marine army I've considered a few times. If I ever decide to start a loyalist Marine army they are on a very short list of possibilities.

Well, look on the bright side: no matter what you pick, it'll be in plastic

True. But on the flip side I can't beat muggers to death with my army!

Well maybe with CSM I can, all those spikes could cause bleeding afterall....

No things in this world has drawn more of my blood than my CSM army.

It's almost depressing. Not even when I fell off my bike did I bleed more than what my CSMs have taken from me.

But Khorne cares not from where the blood flows...

As a Tyranid player, but more as a former Dark Eldar player, I feel your pain. PAIN FOR THE PAIN GOD!!!

Nids are a little spikey, but Dark Eldar and CSM are FAR more pointy.

If they make new CSM as sharply pointed as the Dark Eldar we're all in trouble. The number of spikes paired with how sharp the DE ones are would lead to an ocean of blood.