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.

Honestly guys. It says on the right of the ally chart. Find the row of the codex for your primary detachment. You look at the list and you see codex black templars. The designers note is automaticly activated like a cheap yu-gi-oh trap card. You can be disgruntled about it. But there is nothing there that lets you ignore it. even if it is now in the space marine codex, the codex itself provides an exemption. This exemption also trumps the 6e rule book saying that since its codex space marines you use the space marine ally chart. There just is no room to argue it unless its FAQed.

Refer to does not mean ignore. I'm not sure how that's a euphemism.

After re-reading the mentioned sections of the rulebook and Designers Note in the codex, I can't see a way you can say you shouldn't use the BT column. It's rather simple, as long as you aren't trying to make the Designers Note mean something it doesn't. If you see a rule (in this case, using the BT allies column qualifies) referring to Codex: Black Templars USE THE RULE but know that it refers to an army in Codex: Space Marines using CHapter Tactics: Black Templars. The Designers Note does not say that you ignore any references to Codex: Black Templar and instead treat a Codex: Space Marines army using Chapter Tactics: Black Templars as any other Codex: Space Marines army. It says in fact, the opposite. You should use the rule referring to Codex: Black Templars.

 conker249 wrote:

 Ghaz wrote:

6E C:SM wrote:Some older publications may refer to Codex: Black Templars. For all rules purposes consider these references to instead refer to detachments from C:SM using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule

This means any time you read "Codex: Black Templars" in an older publication, you actually read it as "... detachments from C:SM using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule... " instead. Therefore you would still use the Black Templars column on the ally chart for "... detachments from C:SM using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule..."

Where does it say use the black templar allies column? says use Space Marines in all aspects, so why does that aspect get ignored to use the old chart?

Because it now reads "... detachments from C:SM using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule..." instead of Black Templars. Where does it say not to use it? It doesn't.

conker249 wrote:Where does it say use the black templar allies column? says use Space Marines in all aspects, so why does that aspect get ignored to use the old chart?

It's a switcharoo kind of thing.

The sentence basically says "replace the Codex:BT reference with Codex:SM"

I read it as: "this means we should look to Codex: Space Marines for allies" - which would mean the special BT row in the chart becomes redundant
He reads it as: "this means the Black Templars matrix row stands for C:SM with Black Templars special rules" - which would obviously keep the row active as far as alliances are concerned

Thinking it over, the sentence can be interpreted both ways. Since the fluff in the Codex is fairly clear on how it "should" be, my interpretation is what I posted earlier.

I agree that this should be FAQ'd. This is also a problem that could extend beyond just the Allies chart.

euphemism is a nicer way to say something negative. Saying Refer to instead of Ignore. Wasn't saying that for the rules, was talking to Dosiere about why I thought GW decided to say refer to instead of ignore. Anyway
To post again that the entry says don't refer to codex Black Templar, instead refer to codex Space Marines with Black templar tactics in all aspects. If it says refer to codex Space marines, why would you still believe you would refer to codex black templar? Its a non existent codex now. Also essentially non existent in the rulebook as well. Since now they are referred to Space marines that use Black Templar tactics.

 conker249 wrote:
euphemism is a nicer way to say something negative. Saying Refer to instead of Ignore. Wasn't saying that for the rules, was talking to Dosiere about why I thought GW decided to say refer to instead of ignore. Anyway
To post again that the entry says don't refer to codex Black Templar, instead refer to codex Space Marines with Black templar tactics in all aspects. If it says refer to codex Space marines, why would you still believe you would refer to codex black templar? Its a non existent codex now. Also essentially non existent in the rulebook as well. Since now they are referred to Space marines that use Black Templar tactics.

Again, that's not what it says. It says to keep using any rules referring to Codex: Black Templars if you are using Codex: Space Marines and Chapter Tactics: Black Templars. Again, it says to keep using the rules. Refer to does not mean ignore.

For completion. Here is the rule.

Some Older publications may refer to Codex: Black Templars. For all rules purposes, consider these refrences to instead refer to detachments from Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Tactics special rule."

to break this down.

Some Older publications may refer to Codex: Black Templars.

This seems straight forward, it tells you that sometimes something that came out before the new codex space marines may mention codex black templars. Should this happen. It instructs you to:

For all rules purposes, consider these refrences to instead refer to detachments from Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Tactics special rule."

The only way i can read this is as: Replace every time it says "Codex: Black Templars" with "detachments from Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Tactics special rule."

 Lynata wrote:


Thinking it over, the sentence can be interpreted both ways. Since the fluff in the Codex is fairly clear on how it "should" be, my interpretation is what I posted earlier.

Not really, because there is nothing that tells you to disregard any references to Codex: Black Templars. "... detachments from C:SM using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule..." still use the Black Templars line in the allies matrix because that is what that line now says. It does not say that line no longer exists.

 Lynata wrote:

conker249 wrote:Where does it say use the black templar allies column? says use Space Marines in all aspects, so why does that aspect get ignored to use the old chart?

It's a switcharoo kind of thing.

The sentence basically says "replace the Codex:BT reference with Codex:SM"

I read it as: "this means we should look to Codex: Space Marines for allies" - which would mean the special BT row in the chart becomes redundant
He reads it as: "this means the Black Templars matrix row stands for C:SM with Black Templars special rules" - which would obviously keep the row active as far as alliances are concerned

Thinking it over, the sentence can be interpreted both ways. Since the fluff in the Codex is fairly clear on how it "should" be, my interpretation is what I posted earlier.

I agree that this should be FAQ'd. This is also a problem that could extend beyond just the Allies chart.

That's not what is says though. In fact it says the opposite. It says to keep using the rules referring to Codex: Black Templars with your Codex: Space Marines (black Templars) force.

The entire point of the Designers Note is to make an exception here. If your interpretation of the Designers Note was correct there would be no reason for it to even exist, since if it didn't exist then of course a Black Templars army using the new codex would be a Codex: Space marine army, and you would use the Space marine allies matrix.

Ghaz wrote:Not really, because there is nothing that tells you to disregard any references to Codex: Black Templars.

Which isn't what I said.

Ghaz wrote:"... detachments from C:SM using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule..." still use the Black Templars line in the allies matrix because that is what that line now says. It does not say that line no longer exists.

Ah, but here you are ignoring that the Rulebook says "refer to the Codex of the army you play, THEN find the corresponding row on the chart". What some people in this thread are doing is looking to the chart FIRST.

-> "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix."

Before C:SM this means: "Find the row for Codex: Black Templars"
After C:SM this means: "Find the row for Codex: Space Marines with BT special rules"
And since the Black Templars special rules do not deal with the matrix, this means "Find the row for Codex: Space Marines".

Or at least that's how I read it. Can you at least recognise the controversy?

dosiere wrote:The entire point of the Designers Note is to make an exception here. If your interpretation of the Designers Note was correct there would be no reason for it to even exist, since if it didn't exist then of course a Black Templars army using the new codex would be a Codex: Space marine army, and you would use the Space marine allies matrix.

Not how I read it. Without that note, some players could argue that various additions and supplements would not be valid anymore since the corresponding Codex does not exist.
It's a matter of common sense that stuff like some White Dwarf addon written for C:BT should also be usable with C:SM BTs, but since this is a tabletop game with an extensive ruleset, the designers are quite correct in clarifying it, just to rule out any misunderstandings.
Whether or not some older material now applies depends on how it is written, though. It's not a "carte blanche", it is a foundation to build upon, that is to be used in conjunction with said older rules.

Right, but the row for C:SM Black Templars is the one that says Codex: Black Templars, following the rule in the new codex and not the C:SM one.

The Designer's Note says to use any rules in older publications referring to Codex: Black Templars still with your Codex: Space Marine (Black Templar) army.

I understand what you are saying about the allies chart. But even though Black Templars are indeed in Codex: Space Marines the dang rule in said codex tells you to use the Codex: Black Templars column in that situation.

dosiere wrote:Right, but the row for C:SM Black Templars is the one that says Codex: Black Templars, following the rule in the new codex and not the C:SM one

See, that's what I contest.

It doesn't matter what the row says. The rulebook states you are to find the chart for the Codex you play - and a C:SM army using BT special rules still uses Codex: Space Marines. So you go to the C:SM row.

It's a priority thing. The rulebook's statement that you are to "find the Codex you play" comes before the "the BT row stands for C:SM with BT rules" - not in the least because the row in itself is not a rule.

The codex always trumps the main rulebook if there is a contradiction. In this case there is. You are indeed using Codex: Space Marines. If you happen to be using Black Templars out of that codex however, there is a rule (in the codex) that tells you to use any rules referring to Codex: Black Templars. The Allies chart is part of the rules.

There is no contradiction, there was a change. And the rule in the Codex does not say "you use any rules referring to Codex BT", it says "you replace any instance of Codex BT with Codex SM". This is a huge difference, and very important for the question at hand.

Also, you can't just go and say "the allies chart is valid rules" and, in the same breath, simply discount that the chart is built upon the text that explains how to use it.
By itself, the chart is just a fancy picture.

hmmm its obviously not that clear as we are stiull discussing and I can see both sides of the argument..............

I still don't get why GW would bother to put in the new extra fluff and then flatly contradict it - hopefully a FAQ will clear it up so SOB and BT are Allies of Convenience / Battle Brothers with contestation and in line with their own text.

Agreed.

How are the FAQs made, by the way? Does GW have an e-mail address or something?

(they used to have one mentioned in CJ and WD whenever they published new experimental rules, but I'm fairly sure that one is no longer active ...)

Don't know - I looked on the site and it just syas rules quesitons etc are dealt with on the phone - which is very unhelpful

If they intended for you to use old black templar codex for rules, why does GW not sell black templar codex anymore? or list them as an army? They are not a pure stand alone army anymore. Just like Vulcan and his salamanders.

 conker249 wrote:
If they intended for you to use old black templar codex for rules

This is not what the Note says.

The Note deals with any rules that refer to Black Templars where the rules themselves are located in publications other than the outgoing Black Templar Codex.

For example, if the Planetstrike rules said "On turn 2 when Black Templars are the Attacker, the Black Templars player must eat a whole bag of Monster Munch before starting the movement phase", it would now read "On turn 2 when Space Marines using Black Templars Chapter Traits are the Attacker, the Space Marines player must eat a whole bag of Monster Munch before starting the movement phase"

 Baragash wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
If they intended for you to use old black templar codex for rules

This is not what the Note says.

The Note deals with any rules that refer to Black Templars where the rules themselves are located in publications other than the outgoing Black Templar Codex.

For example, if the Planetstrike rules said "On turn 2 when Black Templars are the Attacker, the Black Templars player must eat a whole bag of Monster Munch before starting the movement phase", it would now read "On turn 2 when Space Marines using Black Templars Chapter Traits are the Attacker, the Space Marines player must eat a whole bag of Monster Munch before starting the movement phase"

That's not the point of this thread. I do agree with you there fully. My point of the argument was where it says refer to codex black templar as Codex Space marines that are using black templar tactics. and from that you would use Codex Space marines as the allies origin(giving allies of convenience), not the Black Templar entry(giving/staying with desperate allies) since they are no longer considered the primary army. Since(to me) it says replace references of X with Y.

 Lynata wrote:

dosiere wrote:Right, but the row for C:SM Black Templars is the one that says Codex: Black Templars, following the rule in the new codex and not the C:SM one

See, that's what I contest.

It doesn't matter what the row says. The rulebook states you are to find the chart for the Codex you play - and a C:SM army using BT special rules still uses Codex: Space Marines. So you go to the C:SM row.

It's a priority thing. The rulebook's statement that you are to "find the Codex you play" comes before the "the BT row stands for C:SM with BT rules" - not in the least because the row in itself is not a rule.

You can contest it all you want, but the only way Black Templars can use the Space Marine line in the allies matrix is if you totally ignore the designer's notes in the codex. You are cherry picking the rules to get the results you want. Try reading the last sentence on page 7 of the BRB to see which rule takes precedence.

 Lynata wrote:
There is no contradiction, there was a change. And the rule in the Codex does not say "you use any rules referring to Codex BT", it says "you replace any instance of Codex BT with Codex SM". This is a huge difference, and very important for the question at hand.

Also, you can't just go and say "the allies chart is valid rules" and, in the same breath, simply discount that the chart is built upon the text that explains how to use it.
By itself, the chart is just a fancy picture.

I am not discoutning anything. The rules in the ruelbook tell you to do X. If the Design Note about Black Templars was not there, you would be correct. The Black Templars are part of Codex: Space marines now.

Yes, the rule in the main rulebook about using the allies chart would lead one to use the allies matrix for Space marines if using Black Templars. However, there is a freakin rule that explicitly states that when you see a rule referencing Codex: Black Templars you use the rule still. In this instance, you do NOT use the rules for Codex: Space Marines, but Codex: Black Templars. The rules in the codex override the rule about using the Allies list you keep talking about.

I don't really know what else to say except to ask you to read the Design Note again a few times without trying to make it say what you want it to but rather pay attention to what it actually says. It does not say "replace any instance of Codex:BT with Codex:SM" as you keep saying. it says the exact opposite of that. The EXACT OPPOSITE! It tells you to keep using the rules for Black Templars if they are referenced in an older book with your new Codex: Space Marines (Black Templars) army.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 conker249 wrote:

 Baragash wrote:

 conker249 wrote:
If they intended for you to use old black templar codex for rules

This is not what the Note says.

The Note deals with any rules that refer to Black Templars where the rules themselves are located in publications other than the outgoing Black Templar Codex.

For example, if the Planetstrike rules said "On turn 2 when Black Templars are the Attacker, the Black Templars player must eat a whole bag of Monster Munch before starting the movement phase", it would now read "On turn 2 when Space Marines using Black Templars Chapter Traits are the Attacker, the Space Marines player must eat a whole bag of Monster Munch before starting the movement phase"

That's not the point of this thread. I do agree with you there fully. My point of the argument was where it says refer to codex black templar as Codex Space marines that are using black templar tactics. and from that you would use Codex Space marines as the allies origin(giving allies of convenience), not the Black Templar entry(giving/staying with desperate allies) since they are no longer considered the primary army. Since(to me) it says replace references of X with Y.

let me ask you this. Explain to me what the Design Note about Black Templars in the new codex means to you, changing only a single word in the orginal rule. If that new word is a synonym of the word you replaced and completely debunks what i am saying then i will talk about it. The only way I see you or Lynata arguing differently is by completely re-writing the entire thing. You are saying : no no no, ignore the original wording it actually says xxxxx.

Some older publications may refer to Codex: Black Templars.
I see this as stating older rule sets call them codex: black templars

For all rules purposes, consider these references to instead refer to detachments from Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter tactics rule
I see this as "dont see it as BT see it instead as SM with bt tactics". Codex space marines would then be the one used for the allies chart since it states for all rules purposes use SM. how is that wrong?

Because you have nothing that says you use the Space Marine line in the allies matrix. It says that when the rules says "Black Templars", read it as "Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Traits". Space Marines therefore now have two lines on the allies matrix, the Space Marine line for the majority of the codex and the Black Templars line for those using the Black Templars Chapter Traits. Nothing tells you to use the Space Marine line for those using the Black Templars Chapter Traits.

Then what does for all rules purposes mean to you?

And yet again, when any rule says "Codex Black Templars" it means "Codex Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Traits". It does NOT mean that you don't use the Codex Black Templars line in the allies matrix. It simply indicates that each and every time that you see "Black Templars" in the rules it is now referring to a force from Codex Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Traits instead of a force from the obsolete Codex Black Templars. It in no way tells you to throw out any reference to "Black Templars" and replace it with "Space Marines".

The ally matrix now says "Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Traits" instead of "Black Templars". If you're playing a force from Codex Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter Traits, then that is the line you use. You do NOT use the Space Marine line.

I see both sides, I just lean towards the opinion i've expressed. Till the FAQ comes out, play as you see

 conker249 wrote:
Some older publications may refer to Codex: Black Templars.
I see this as stating older rule sets call them codex: black templars

For all rules purposes, consider these references to instead refer to detachments from Codex: Space Marines using the Black Templars Chapter tactics rule
I see this as "dont see it as BT see it instead as SM with bt tactics". Codex space marines would then be the one used for the allies chart since it states for all rules purposes use SM. how is that wrong?

Good grief! You have re-written a rule in your head and just keep repeating it since it's what you want it to say. The answer to your question has been answered about 20 times in this thread already. If you're not going to even read what others are writing I'll leave you to it!

 Ghaz wrote:

6E C:SM wrote:Some older publications may refer to Codex: Black Templars. For all rules purposes consider these references to instead refer to detachments from C:SM using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule

This means any time you read "Codex: Black Templars" in an older publication, you actually read it as "... detachments from C:SM using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule... " instead. Therefore you would still use the Black Templars column on the ally chart for "... detachments from C:SM using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule..."

You quoted the BT note. I'll include a quote from the BRB 113: "Find the row for the codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix."

So, when an older publication uses the words "Codex: Black Templar," you replace that with "Codex: Space Marine (with BT Chapter Tactics)." And there's already a row for Codex: Space Marine.
There is no such thing as Codex: Black Templar. It no longer exists. If I look at the Allies Matrix, I can't look at the BT row because I now use the SM codex. I have to look at the SM row.
Now, does the Designer's note on Black Templars say, "You still use the Black Templar Codex"? No, it does not. The Black Templar Codex doesn't exist. It says, "Anything that refers to the Black Templar codex instead now refers to the Space Marine Codex (with a certain type of tactics)." If you look at the Black Templar row, are you looking at the "codex of your primary detachment"? No, you are not.
When I take Chapter Tactics Imperial Fists, can I look at the Imperial Fists row? No, I cannot, because there isn't an IF codex! In the same way, there is no BT codex!

Please answer this: Is an army with Chapter Tactics Black Templar using the Black Templar codex? If not, then you can't look at the row for the Black Templar codex. You have to look at the Space Marine row, since that's the name of the codex you are using.

Now, I think I've just convinced myself that you're correct....! But I'd like my problem solved before I consider the issue to be settled.

You are misunderstanding the Designers Note. You do not ignore the reference to Codex: Black Templars. No, it does not "exist" anymore, but the purpose of the Designer's Note is to tell you to STILL USE any rules referencing Codex: Black Templars.

It is a rule giving an exception to the things you just described. Again, you are trying to make the rules in the main rulebook override what is written in the codex. The main rulebook tells you to use Codex: Space Marines for your Black Templars now. Yes! That is correct, it does.
The Designer's Note in the codex however tells you to still use the Black Templar column. Which do you use? The answer is on page 7ish of your main rulebook, look it up.


Does that make sense?

edit- why can't you look at the BT column? Did you white it out or something? It's still there, and the new codex tells you to still use it instead of the C:SM column.