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 my buddy and I were playing the other day, I use the black templars codex he was using the new blood angels one.
But here are some questions that came up during play.

1. My terminators rules state that the storm shield grants a 4+ invuln in close combat, the "newer" rules in the SM5e and BA 5e codex grant a 3+ invuln all the time. Do I use the old rules?

2. Do I have to model frags grenades on all of my crusader squads?? That would be rediculous.

3. The "new" land speeder typhoon has 2 str 8 missiles I think. The old one (mine) has a twinlinked s5 blast. Once again, do I use the new or old one?

4. Here's the big one. My landraider and rhino have smoke launchers, but my smoke launchers, instead of giving a 4+ cover save, make all penetrating hits become glancing that turn. I'm supposed to use the rules in my BT codex correct?

5. My landraider is not an "assault vehicle" but has an "assault ramp" would I not be able to move and unload and assault because those are the newer rules?

hivefleetmonolith wrote:so my buddy and I were playing the other day, I use the black templars codex he was using the new blood angels one.
But here are some questions that came up during play.

1. My terminators rules state that the storm shield grants a 4+ invuln in close combat, the "newer" rules in the SM5e and BA 5e codex grant a 3+ invuln all the time. Do I use the old rules?

2. Do I have to model frags grenades on all of my crusader squads?? That would be rediculous.

3. The "new" land speeder typhoon has 2 str 8 missiles I think. The old one (mine) has a twinlinked s5 blast. Once again, do I use the new or old one?

4. Here's the big one. My landraider and rhino have smoke launchers, but my smoke launchers, instead of giving a 4+ cover save, make all penetrating hits become glancing that turn. I'm supposed to use the rules in my BT codex correct?

5. My landraider is not an "assault vehicle" but has an "assault ramp" would I not be able to move and unload and assault because those are the newer rules?

1) Old Rules.
2) Yes, No, Maybe. Depends on your group. Most people do not insist on it.
3) Old Rules.
4) Old Rules.
5) RaW, you can't assault out of it. Most people will let you anyway.

1. Old rules
3. Old rules
4. Old rules
5. Black Templars can never assault out of a moving Land Raider. Lots of people will try to insist otherwise, but GW has had plenty of opportunities to fix this with an errata like they did for Daemonhunters. Black Templars Land Raiders never had a special rule allowing units to assault from them when they move.

thebetter1 wrote:5. Black Templars can never assault out of a moving Land Raider. Lots of people will try to insist otherwise, but GW has had plenty of opportunities to fix this with an errata like they did for Daemonhunters. Black Templars Land Raiders never had a special rule allowing units to assault from them when they move.

While that technically is correct, as Gwar! pointed out, most people would let you play it as if it was an assault vehicle. If my opponent wanted me to play without a land raider that I can assault from, I'd either argue for a bit, refuse playing or, if I were in a really bad mood, start bringing up all the ridiculous RaW things I could, just to make my point. Arguing that the chapter that would benefit the most from an assault vehicle (hell, the chapter that INVENTED the LRC) doesn't have it is kinda stupid (yes, I know, RaW common sense doesn't apply, but COME ON).

Also, I wouldn't put too much faith into "GW could fix it if they wanted". There's loads of stuff they could fix fast that they haven't.

What exactly is the deal with the "assault ramp" anyway? Was this something in the 4th edition Space Marine codex and they forgot to port over the definition for the Black Templars book?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:What exactly is the deal with the "assault ramp" anyway? Was this something in the 4th edition Space Marine codex and they forgot to port over the definition for the Black Templars book?

It was in the 4th ed Rulebook.

AlmightyWalrus wrote:Also, I wouldn't put too much faith into "GW could fix it if they wanted". There's loads of stuff they could fix fast that they haven't.

In this case, they have fixed it for a different army. There is no reason at all to believe that you can assault out of a moving Black Templars Land Raider.

There is a pretty strong intent case for this as well. There used to be a rule that you could assault out of any moving Land Raider from any army. Considering that much of the fifth edition rulebook was copied straight from fourth, they intentionally removed this rule, specifically giving it back only to one of the affected armies.

thebetter1 wrote:There is no reason at all to believe that you can assault out of a moving Black Templars Land Raider.

You've got to be kidding me.

thebetter1 wrote:Black Templars Land Raiders never had a special rule allowing units to assault from them when they move

This is true but misleading. In the 4th ed BRB any troops could assault directly out of any land raider, Black Templars included.

They probably didn't carry this over to 5th because somewhere down the line they will be launching a landraider that is not an assault vehicle but is made of AP1 flamers. Not giving a BT opponent the benefit of the doubt is, in my opinion, the height of skulduggery.

thebetter1 wrote: Considering that much of the fifth edition rulebook was copied straight from fourth, they intentionally removed this rule, specifically giving it back only to one of the affected armies.

I think it's more likely that they removed the rule from the rulebook because it more appropriately belonged in the respective codexes, and BT's missed out simply because their codex was written before that decision was made.

YMMV, obviously.

yea I'm thinking that when the new BT codex is released I would be getting an updated land raider, but for now I just have to assume my opponent will be a jerk (it would be a tournament after all and people tend to not be as sportsmanlike) and use the old rules. Perhaps ask my opponent before the game if he minds whether I use the new ones or not, wouldn't count on it though.

I suppose the only thing I have to look forward to is that I'd get the old smoke launchers rules which imo are better lol.

Honestly I'd expect a Black Templars player to actually use his Land Raiders' Assault Ramps, even in 'Ard Boyz.

If I were playing a Black Templars player who wanted to assault out of a moving Land Raider, I would compromise.

They get to do this, but they also have to use the damage tables from fourth edition. Otherwise, you would just be picking and choosing for your own benefit.

If their vehicles are in cover, they only downgrade to a glance on a 4+.

Also, their meltaguns would not add 1 to vehicle damage rolls but would instead upgrade glances to penetrations.

So, you could either play by the rules, or you could steal ALL the rules from the fourth edition rulebook and apply them only to your army.

That's extremely dumb. There is no nice way to say it, sorry.

yea, there's no way I'm crippling myself by using 4th edition rulebooks. I'm just going to not assault out of the landraider and use the old smoke launcher rules, parking my land raider right next to the enemy and hoping they don't get a 6 on the damage table with a melta (the only way they could destroy it and even then it wouldn't blow up).

As a side note, there is really no reason why it should take so long for games workshop to release new codex's. And if they wont bother releasing new ones right away then they should at least amend fuzzy rules like this one.

How about target priority tests and wound allocation? Wouldn't want to be cherry picking.

Seriously though, playing with the older books requires proper compromises by both players. If the BT player is willing to use the book with its 4++ storm shields and so on he should be allowed to keep rules that have been overlooked. I don't believe for a second that you think GW thought about and subsequently agreed that BT shouldn't have assault LRs in 5th edition.

yeah neither i nor crazythang noticed that our new armies don't have assault vehicles. So we'll probably be playing it that we can assault, but its pretty funny that dakka made us learn

Well, you do have assault vehicles, they just took the rules for assault vehicles out of the main rulebook.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:That's extremely dumb. There is no nice way to say it, sorry.

You cannot assault out of a moving Black Templars Land Raider. I don't know if you're trying to start a flame war or something, but in this case the rules are very clear and there is simply no room for debate. Attempting to assault in this case after hearing this would be cheating unless both players agreed that it is acceptable.

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Well, you do have assault vehicles, they just took the rules for assault vehicles out of the main rulebook.

No, they changed the rules for assault vehicles so that Land Raiders are not included.

Soup and a roll wrote:
Seriously though, playing with the older books requires proper compromises by both players. If the BT player is willing to use the book with its 4++ storm shields and so on he should be allowed to keep rules that have been overlooked. I don't believe for a second that you think GW thought about and subsequently agreed that BT shouldn't have assault LRs in 5th edition.

Why, then, would the Black Templars player not also be bound by the fourth edition damage tables? If the BT player wants to use the BT book rather than the normal SM book that is his decision and he should take the disadvantages of the army, not just its advantages.

So are you then saying that his Prefered enemy from the EC Vow makes them hit on 3+ and not re-roll to would...
Its in the name ASSAULT!.
Just think of all the neat stuff we don't get to have from the codex:SM 5th edition.
Being a RAW whore just bogs the game down and makes it no fun to play. I'm not saying let them get away with anyhting but sude an Oz of common sence about it. and besides is it that important that you are the best person at rolling dice and playing with tiny plastic guys.

psf3077 wrote: Being a RAW whore just bogs the game down and makes it no fun to play.

Can you explain to me why you are posting on a rules forum, then?

thebetter1 wrote:Why, then, would the Black Templars player not also be bound by the fourth edition damage tables? If the BT player wants to use the BT book rather than the normal SM book that is his decision and he should take the disadvantages of the army, not just its advantages.

Because that's a horrible compromise. Mangling the underlying game mechanics won't help anyone.

It is not a giant leap of logic to give assault ramps the benefit of the doubt. RAW is a good servant but a poor master. I would hope that any opponents and TOs I encountered would agree on this ruling.

Soup and a roll wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Why, then, would the Black Templars player not also be bound by the fourth edition damage tables? If the BT player wants to use the BT book rather than the normal SM book that is his decision and he should take the disadvantages of the army, not just its advantages.

Because that's a horrible compromise. Mangling the underlying game mechanics won't help anyone.

It is not a giant leap of logic to give assault ramps the benefit of the doubt. RAW is a good servant but a poor master. I would hope that any opponents and TOs I encountered would agree on this ruling.

Id agree 100% with that one. And using the 4th edition damage chart is just silly. They redid the damage chart for 5th, therefor you USE the 5th edition damage chart. If they didnt re due a rule from 4th to 5th, you have to compromise or use it how its written. Not make up something as ridiculous as "well since you want to use it as an assault vehicle, you also have to use the 4th edition damage table, just cause I said so."

thebetter1 wrote:5. Black Templars can never assault out of a moving Land Raider. Lots of people will try to insist otherwise, but GW has had plenty of opportunities to fix this with an errata like they did for Daemonhunters.

Like the DH FAQ where Grey Knights raiders got PotMS but Inquisitors raiders didn't? The omission of a FAQ is not proof of intent.

Scott-S6 wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:5. Black Templars can never assault out of a moving Land Raider. Lots of people will try to insist otherwise, but GW has had plenty of opportunities to fix this with an errata like they did for Daemonhunters.

Like the DH FAQ where Grey Knights raiders got PotMS but Inquisitors raiders didn't? The omission of a FAQ is not proof of intent.

So you agree that my Space Wolves should all be S10 with Ld 11? After all, they didn't put it in the FAQ.

The fact is, they could have fixed it. They didn't, so Black Templars have crappy LRC. Simple.

Gwar! wrote:The fact is, they could have fixed it. They didn't, so Black Templars have crappy LRC. Simple.

The RAW are simple. How everyone plays it, however, is less simple.

Gwar! wrote:

Scott-S6 wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:5. Black Templars can never assault out of a moving Land Raider. Lots of people will try to insist otherwise, but GW has had plenty of opportunities to fix this with an errata like they did for Daemonhunters.

Like the DH FAQ where Grey Knights raiders got PotMS but Inquisitors raiders didn't? The omission of a FAQ is not proof of intent.

So you agree that my Space Wolves should all be S10 with Ld 11? After all, they didn't put it in the FAQ.

The fact is, they could have fixed it. They didn't, so Black Templars have crappy LRC. Simple.

Quite so. However, the fact that GW haven't gotten around to FAQing something is not a meaningful supporting argument. There are lots of things in need of fixing which they have not and probably will not get around to.

KingCracker wrote:

Soup and a roll wrote:

thebetter1 wrote:Why, then, would the Black Templars player not also be bound by the fourth edition damage tables? If the BT player wants to use the BT book rather than the normal SM book that is his decision and he should take the disadvantages of the army, not just its advantages.

Because that's a horrible compromise. Mangling the underlying game mechanics won't help anyone.

It is not a giant leap of logic to give assault ramps the benefit of the doubt. RAW is a good servant but a poor master. I would hope that any opponents and TOs I encountered would agree on this ruling.

Id agree 100% with that one. And using the 4th edition damage chart is just silly. They redid the damage chart for 5th, therefor you USE the 5th edition damage chart. If they didnt re due a rule from 4th to 5th, you have to compromise or use it how its written. Not make up something as ridiculous as "well since you want to use it as an assault vehicle, you also have to use the 4th edition damage table, just cause I said so."

As I have said countless times (with irrefutable logic), they did redo the assault vehicle rules so that Land Raiders are not included.

Seriously, the rules are simply 100% clear. If you have no arguments, stop insisting that you are right and expecting others to take your side.

Has it ever occurred to any of you that the rules actually make sense?

Where did they redo the assault vehicle rules?

MasterSlowPoke wrote:Where did they redo the assault vehicle rules?

Think about it. If they were not redone, we would not be having this discussion.