Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

So I am wrong for our group’s priorities are:
#1] Have Fun
#2] Having good looking Models on the field
#3] Playing what units we like to play for the “Coolness Factor”
#4] Winning

You're not WRONG. It just makes it nearly impossible to have a discussion of what's good and what's not good. Just like tactical marines. You think they're fine because that's your experience. But in the kinds of games other groups play, there really isn't a way to make them good because of the maths.

Well I feel people think they are being told they are wrong because this thread asks how you feel the new black templar are. People have stated what they think works, while the OP (and others) consistently argue that those things are all rubbish and that BT cannot win. Then we argue back with the naysayers that they arent rubbish. This has happened for 9 pages.

In the end it looks like some people are upset, and some people like it. Such is the case with most things, you can't please everyone you know.

But it also looks like some people are winning, and some people are not. It could be multiple factors. Different meta, different players, luck of the dice, different strategies, all sorts of things.

But end result is:
Are Black Templar armies top tier for competitive play? No.
Can you build a playable list that can actually win? Yes.
Are the winnable lists fluffy? Under debate. My vote is yes.
Can you make a list that you feel is fluffy and have fun? I can

 Icculus wrote:
Well I feel people think they are being told they are wrong because this thread asks how you feel the new black templar are. People have stated what they think works, while the OP (and others) consistently argue that those things are all rubbish and that BT cannot win. Then we argue back with the naysayers that they arent rubbish. This has happened for 9 pages.

In the end it looks like some people are upset, and some people like it. Such is the case with most things, you can't please everyone you know.

But it also looks like some people are winning, and some people are not. It could be multiple factors. Different meta, different players, luck of the dice, different strategies, all sorts of things.

But end result is:
Are Black Templar armies top tier for competitive play? No.
Can you build a playable list that can actually win? Yes.
Are the winnable lists fluffy? Under debate. My vote is yes.
Can you make a list that you feel is fluffy and have fun? I can

I don't think anyone really commented that they have had much success with Black Templar in this thread- the majority of people that are saying 'it's not that bad' don't actually play the army, rather are looking for definitive proof that things are as dire as stated.

One thing is for certain though- it's likely the people that don't play Templar really have no idea how uncompetetive the army is for the simple fact they have probably never actually played against a BT list.

Anpu42 wrote:So I am wrong for our group’s priorities are:
#1] Have Fun
#2] Having good looking Models on the field
#3] Playing what units we like to play for the “Coolness Factor”
#4] Winning

To an extend, yes. Yes, that's why you are wrong on what units are good and which are not.

No, you are not wrong on how you play the game. I'd probably like playing games with your group a lot. Not because I can bring some power list to crush you guys, but rather because I could actually field models like Grimaldus and not have them fall flat on their face and cause me to lose the entire game, which really is all what he is doing for me in my meta.

I hope you understand what you're saying. It's great that you are having fun playing the game the way you are, but that special way you are playing makes you a bad source for data (and probably experience) when it comes to looking at armies, units and models purely from the viewpoint of your #4. That's like an ork giving advice to a vindicare on how to shoot best - the ork is definitely having more fun, but that vindicare actually hits and kills things.

Icculus wrote:But end result is:
Are Black Templar armies top tier for competitive play? No.
Can you build a playable list that can actually win? Yes.
Are the winnable lists fluffy? Under debate. My vote is yes.
Can you make a list that you feel is fluffy and have fun? I can

I think this is a slight miss. As long as you are not fielding Helbrecht, you can always field the exact same army with Chapter Tactics: Iron Hands, Chapter Tactics: Ultra Marines, Chapter Tactics: Imperial/Chrimson Fists or Chapter Tactics: Raven Guard and have a better army. Pretty much the only reason to pick Chapter Tactics: Black Templars is having your rules fit your paint scheme.

Just finished off a game vs Ultramarines.

BT Chapter tactics were useless. Admantium Will was not triggered since Tigurius was busy buffing grav cents. Crusader was useless since I was playing a las/plas MSU force in rhinos. And Accept Any Challenge never came into play sine nothing made it into assault before being turned into Swiss cheese.

Ultramarines did well. Used their Tactical doctrine and Devistator doctrines at key moments to maximize their effectiveness.

My opponent did a good job with his army but for most fights it feel like you're going in with one hand tied behind you back. That's never fun whether you play a fluffy list or a competitive one.

I played two games in the last couple days. One game was against Tyranids and the other against Orks.

The tyranids destroyed me, but mostly because of a lucky shot blowing up my landraider on turn 1 before it ever got to do anything. as for the chapter tactics, I never ran, so I never used that. There was almost nobody to challenge since it was a lot of hordes, so I never used that, but I did use adamantium will and denied the witch twice in the game. Although, like I said, I still got overrun.

The second game I won against a triple battlewagon list with nob bikers and a dakkajet. I was able to make use of a big crusader squad this time and actually beat his nob bikers in close combat. my MSU las.plas squads didnt ever destroy a battlewagon, but they did get pens to prevent them from moving, which was incredibly helpful. And my challenges went great when a nob biker challenged my crusader squad with a chaplin, my sword brother accepted. the sword brother died, but not before putting two wounds on the warboss. I was able to control the orks in close combat with a dreadnought, honor guard and crusader squad, with las/plas and a devastator squad firing support.

Actually my two losses with this new codex were both to tyranids, while my wins came against Space Marines, Necrons and Orks.

So could I have run the same lists with other tactics? no, becuase I used multiple crusader squads with las/plas, and a 10/4 initiate/neophyte squad in a LRC.

Nob bikers can't challenge anything though, since they aren't characters. Only painboyz are. I assume you meant the biker warboss though.

You could just switch your small squads for tactical marines and your big squad for assault marines. You trade five las/plas and four scouts for three las/plas squads and some bolter marines.
How much impact did those additional four las/plas weapons and scouts have on your games? More or less than another variant of chapter tactics?

 Icculus wrote:
I played two games in the last couple days. One game was against Tyranids and the other against Orks.

The tyranids destroyed me, but mostly because of a lucky shot blowing up my landraider on turn 1 before it ever got to do anything. as for the chapter tactics, I never ran, so I never used that. There was almost nobody to challenge since it was a lot of hordes, so I never used that, but I did use adamantium will and denied the witch twice in the game. Although, like I said, I still got overrun.

The second game I won against a triple battlewagon list with nob bikers and a dakkajet. I was able to make use of a big crusader squad this time and actually beat his nob bikers in close combat. my MSU las.plas squads didnt ever destroy a battlewagon, but they did get pens to prevent them from moving, which was incredibly helpful. And my challenges went great when a nob biker challenged my crusader squad with a chaplin, my sword brother accepted. the sword brother died, but not before putting two wounds on the warboss. I was able to control the orks in close combat with a dreadnought, honor guard and crusader squad, with las/plas and a devastator squad firing support.

Actually my two losses with this new codex were both to tyranids, while my wins came against Space Marines, Necrons and Orks.

So could I have run the same lists with other tactics? no, becuase I used multiple crusader squads with las/plas, and a 10/4 initiate/neophyte squad in a LRC.

This just reinforces the fact that the BT chapter tactics aren't consistent compared to others. Iron hands will always get FNP no matter who they face and Ultramarine doctrines keep them flexible against any foe.

The most viable build for BT are the las/plas MSU but if you take that then BT Tactics such as Crusader and Accept Ay Challenge are useless and Admantium will are conditional at best so you're negating some of the effectiveness of the Crusader squad.

Rustican wrote:

 Icculus wrote:
I played two games in the last couple days. One game was against Tyranids and the other against Orks.

The tyranids destroyed me, but mostly because of a lucky shot blowing up my landraider on turn 1 before it ever got to do anything. as for the chapter tactics, I never ran, so I never used that. There was almost nobody to challenge since it was a lot of hordes, so I never used that, but I did use adamantium will and denied the witch twice in the game. Although, like I said, I still got overrun.

The second game I won against a triple battlewagon list with nob bikers and a dakkajet. I was able to make use of a big crusader squad this time and actually beat his nob bikers in close combat. my MSU las.plas squads didnt ever destroy a battlewagon, but they did get pens to prevent them from moving, which was incredibly helpful. And my challenges went great when a nob biker challenged my crusader squad with a chaplin, my sword brother accepted. the sword brother died, but not before putting two wounds on the warboss. I was able to control the orks in close combat with a dreadnought, honor guard and crusader squad, with las/plas and a devastator squad firing support.

Actually my two losses with this new codex were both to tyranids, while my wins came against Space Marines, Necrons and Orks.

So could I have run the same lists with other tactics? no, becuase I used multiple crusader squads with las/plas, and a 10/4 initiate/neophyte squad in a LRC.

This just reinforces the fact that the BT chapter tactics aren't consistent compared to others. Iron hands will always get FNP no matter who they face and Ultramarine doctrines keep them flexible against any foe.

The most viable build for BT are the las/plas MSU but if you take that then BT Tactics such as Crusader and Accept Ay Challenge are useless and Admantium will are conditional at best so you're negating some of the effectiveness of the Crusader squad.

Exactly. Even people defending BT are demonstrating how useless/situational their Chapter Tactics are, and example lists contain las/plas squads (a shooty option that was retained based on old codex design).

Ah yes, it was the bikerboss, my apologies there.

But you are saying that the fact that I can always take crusader squads is not consistent? Having 10 marines and 4-6 scouts in a landraider crusader is not possible with any other army. having 4 5-man squads each with a lascannon and a plasma gun is not possible with any other army. And I can consistently take these units against any army I face.

If I am running MSU crusader squads is my challenge ability useless? not when I drop pod an honor guard, or when my crusader squad in the LRC gets in to combat.
Sure Adamantium Will and Crusader are situational, but does that mean they are worthless?

 Icculus wrote:
Ah yes, it was the bikerboss, my apologies there.

But you are saying that the fact that I can always take crusader squads is not consistent? Having 10 marines and 4-6 scouts in a landraider crusader is not possible with any other army. having 4 5-man squads each with a lascannon and a plasma gun is not possible with any other army. And I can consistently take these units against any army I face.

If I am running MSU crusader squads is my challenge ability useless? not when I drop pod an honor guard, or when my crusader squad in the LRC gets in to combat.

Sure Adamantium Will and Crusader are situational, but does that mean they are worthless?

Compared to White Scars or Iron Hands, yes. For marines to be even remotely comparable to the better lists, they need efficacious chapter tactics.

Then let me go on record as saying this again. Black Templar chapter tactics are not top tier, cheese builds, super competitive. I think I made that clear. My point is that they are not useless, and you can still win games. Most people who play Black Templar, do so for the fluff. they like the paint scheme, they like the story behind them, they like the look.
So yes, if you are looking for a tournament competitive build and want to take home the championship, go elsewhere for chapter tactics. BUT, given a good player, and some solid list building, you can lose to a black templar player. Like the game where I took on an Imperial Fist army and won. Thank you crusader squads, and the new chapter master. Seriously the chapter master with a storm shield is a beast
in close combat

Martel732 wrote:

Compared to White Scars or Iron Hands, yes.

Why compare? We are talking about Black Templar as an army unto itself. You may as well call Space Marines useless compared to Tuadar. Seriously, why play space marines at all when their are clearly better armies out there.

 Icculus wrote:
Ah yes, it was the bikerboss, my apologies there.

But you are saying that the fact that I can always take crusader squads is not consistent? Having 10 marines and 4-6 scouts in a landraider crusader is not possible with any other army. having 4 5-man squads each with a lascannon and a plasma gun is not possible with any other army. And I can consistently take these units against any army I face.

If I am running MSU crusader squads is my challenge ability useless? not when I drop pod an honor guard, or when my crusader squad in the LRC gets in to combat.

Sure Adamantium Will and Crusader are situational, but does that mean they are worthless?

The argument here is whether or not Black Templars are consistent overall compared to other Chapters. Yes, you can always take Crusader Squads, but will they have the same benefits against different armies and against different opponents? The answer is no.

Example:
At Iron hands tac squad will always FNP against shooting wounds, assault wounds and psychic wounds.

A Crusader squad if played as a shooty squad will not care about Crusader USR. If they assault or get assaulted by a unit with no characters then Accept any challenge is worthless. If they fight a army with no psyerks or if the psyker powers are self buffs then Admantium will is useless. How is this consistent?

Are the BT chapter tactics worthless? No, but compared to the other SM tactics they are worth less.

Imperial fists aren't that good either. But I'm sure it's consoling for the BT players to know that BT are good against players that aren't competitive to begin with. Another day, another line of apologist logic.

BT would play exactly the same if their chapter tactics didn't exist. That's mega lame. GW needs to make lists that can compete against ALL other codices, not just players pulling punches.

The above assertion makes BT garbage. Only their pricing saves them from being as much garbage as BA.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
So, now that the dust has settled a bit and we've had some time to (attempt to) accept the fact that BT got rolled, what are your opinions on how the army plays? I'm not interested in whether or not you think Templars belong in their own book or not, I'm interested in the way people think things turned out.

The argument here is from the OP, his first post. How does the army play? You started comparing it to other chapter tactics. But you say they are worth less than white scars or iron hands. But again, I think the discussion here is how to black templar play. If you do play with the BT tactics, how does it go? I have stated my wins and losses, and overall have more wins than losses, although 3-2 isn't huge, but I'm excited to look forward.

Yes Iron Hands can always take 6+ FNP but I can always take MSU las/plas and I can always take big crusader squad blobs, and I always run at least one or two close combat squads to take advantage of the challenge rules. I think you are forgetting that crusader squads are part of the Black Templar package. They are part of the CT.

edit: I'm done with this thread.

Even as a BT player I agree with the BT bashers.
Not every army build works and, unfortunately, this is one of the ones that doesn't... But I still play them anyway because I love them, and I even squeeze a win or two in every now and again :3

I fear BT far less than UM because I know I can't face a Tiggy star. What do BT have in place? Blobs of marines? Marines aren't good individually, so putting them in blobs is the answer?

Arguably -- and I do say arguably, because I think it could go either way -- the BT Chapter Tactics and the Crusader squad are collectively as good as the CT of some of the other Chapters. I think a lot of the angst comes from the fact that the CT are somewhat fluffy, true to the ideal of the BT as the Black Tide CC SM army, but do not go nearly far enough to offset the deficiencies of the Marines in that regard.

Black Templars do have some advantages that other chapters do not, outside of their CT. 5-man 2-special weapon squads are one use of the Crusader squad. But the utility of the blob Crusader squads has gone way down -- in the older editions, you could take casualties from the weaker novitiates, and now you will more likely lose your initiates due to the new wound allocation rules. Furthermore, while it's true that BT have gotten a lot of new equipment and unit options, but you also have to recognize that some of the things that made them unique, like the LR Crusader, have been given to other armies as well.

I think the biggest gripes are that:

1) The Black Templars no longer are competitive if you build the army to fit the fluff. In contrast, all of the other Chapters in C:SM have CT which both make them more competitive AND also more fluffy.
2) The benefits the BT get from the CT are not synergistic with the best use of the Crusader Squad. In many games, you might not get any benefit from your CT at all, although the Crusader Squad can still be used to your advantage.

 Anpu42 wrote:
So I am wrong for our group’s priorities are:
#1] Have Fun
#2] Having good looking Models on the field
#3] Playing what units we like to play for the “Coolness Factor”
#4] Winning

Those four things don't go together at all.
The 'Coolness factor' models tend to be crap.
HELLO MANDRAKES!

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So I am wrong for our group’s priorities are:
#1] Have Fun
#2] Having good looking Models on the field
#3] Playing what units we like to play for the “Coolness Factor”
#4] Winning

Those four things don't go together at all.
The 'Coolness factor' models tend to be crap.
HELLO MANDRAKES!

It does when everyone in the group is on the same page.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So I am wrong for our group’s priorities are:
#1] Have Fun
#2] Having good looking Models on the field
#3] Playing what units we like to play for the “Coolness Factor”
#4] Winning

Those four things don't go together at all.
The 'Coolness factor' models tend to be crap.
HELLO MANDRAKES!

It does when everyone in the group is on the same page.

So you play cool, fluffy armies but still want to win?
You must lose at tournaments.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So I am wrong for our group’s priorities are:
#1] Have Fun
#2] Having good looking Models on the field
#3] Playing what units we like to play for the “Coolness Factor”
#4] Winning

Those four things don't go together at all.
The 'Coolness factor' models tend to be crap.
HELLO MANDRAKES!

It does when everyone in the group is on the same page.

So you play cool, fluffy armies but still want to win?
You must lose at tournaments.

We don't do the Tourny sceene.
Now I admit we waste about an hour before every game going "Ohhh! Ahhhh! Pretty!" when someone shows of a new model and then have to show off ours.

 Anpu42 wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So I am wrong for our group’s priorities are:
#1] Have Fun
#2] Having good looking Models on the field
#3] Playing what units we like to play for the “Coolness Factor”
#4] Winning

Those four things don't go together at all.
The 'Coolness factor' models tend to be crap.
HELLO MANDRAKES!

It does when everyone in the group is on the same page.

So you play cool, fluffy armies but still want to win?
You must lose at tournaments.

We don't do the Tourny sceene.
Now I admit we waste about an hour before every game going "Ohhh! Ahhhh! Pretty!" when someone shows of a new model and then have to show off ours.

If you don't go to tournaments or care about competitive play then why are you commenting about competitive play and making such sweeping statements?

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:
So I am wrong for our group’s priorities are:
#1] Have Fun
#2] Having good looking Models on the field
#3] Playing what units we like to play for the “Coolness Factor”
#4] Winning

Those four things don't go together at all.
The 'Coolness factor' models tend to be crap.
HELLO MANDRAKES!

It does when everyone in the group is on the same page.

So you play cool, fluffy armies but still want to win?
You must lose at tournaments.

We don't do the Tourny sceene.
Now I admit we waste about an hour before every game going "Ohhh! Ahhhh! Pretty!" when someone shows of a new model and then have to show off ours.

If you don't go to tournaments or care about competitive play then why are you commenting about competitive play and making such sweeping statements?

If you paid attention I stoped comenting on "Competative" Play after someone had giving me some real life experiances not mathammer.
I have not had the chance to try it myself, but I feel in my Meta they will have merrit. I am now trying to only responding to coments directed at me.

I still don't understand your aversion to math.

Martel732 wrote:
I still don't understand your aversion to math.

My aversion is to Mathhammer ONLY.
It you use Mathhammer to see how something works and then take it out to test your Math, then it is proven, not theory.

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still don't understand your aversion to math.

My aversion is to Mathhammer ONLY.
It you use Mathhammer to see how something works and then take it out to test your Math, then it is proven, not theory.

No, Mathhammer is always correct.
Mathhammer means Grey Hunters are better than Crusaders. Mathhammer wins, regardless of your 'experience'.

 BrotherOfBone wrote:

 Anpu42 wrote:

Martel732 wrote:
I still don't understand your aversion to math.

My aversion is to Mathhammer ONLY.
It you use Mathhammer to see how something works and then take it out to test your Math, then it is proven, not theory.

No, Mathhammer is always correct.
Mathhammer means Grey Hunters are better than Crusaders. Mathhammer wins, regardless of your 'experience'.

Then I must live on a difrent plane of existance than the rest of you.

By Mathhamer Blood Claws can never work on the table, but with a Wolf Priest I have made them worth taking on occasion.

And now as I will now sound like a Broken Record: I also live in a Flyffy Lets Have Fun Fisrts Envoroment and that varible changes the MathHammer Equasion more than you think.

It doesn't change it at all. It just means that in your play group, it's not very important to even bother doing the MathHammer, since no one is really trying to field a good list.

This may be what GW intends, but I have never found a group that rolls like this.