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.

in your opinion...

There are a lot of folks around where I game who say don't get the Black Templars or Dark Angles codex as there is something wrong with their rules (outdated?) which makes them out matched compared to the reg codex, space wolves, and blood angles. Is this true?
Old codexes don't stop folks from playing all sorts of armies...

They both got FAQ'ed and are now more competitive.

When more recent comparable codexes (SM, SW, then BA) were released, many options got cheaper/better, more options were introduced, etc. So there is a significant gap. GW recently released FAQs for the templars and dark angels codexes that let them use the newer rules for many weapons and pieces of wargear that are new and improved. IF you play either army, get that FAQ, print it, carry it around in the codex. Will make a big difference.

Basically there was a shift in design and rules between the DA codex (especially), the BT codex, and then the 3 recent space marine books, which were all written after 5th edition came out. As the rules changed things got more or less powerful due to their interaction with the current rules. Especially with the aforementioned FAQs, BT and DA can do a few things very well - they can get some things, like cheap typhoon landspeeders or up-armed terminators, that exist as sort of anachronisms in the rules. They just don't have the same flexibility and power throughout the list, of the newest codexes.

So they're fine to use, but if you play very competitively, there are a limited list of their units that are 'good' in comparison to the modern-codex equivalents.

Angels, not angles. As far as I know there are no Space Marines practicing geometry.

The Black Templar codex is very strongly a 4th edition codex, and has everything that brings. Expensive transports, wonky wargear that is seldom used, and some balance issues due to power creep. The Dark Angels codex on the other hand is from a brief period where GW was oversimplifying things and it's slashed and burned as a result. They have both been made more effective by a recent FAQ that updates their equipment to Codex: Space Marines stats.

BTs are more competitive as they can leviate some of their otherwise faulty rules. Instead of a Razorback or Rhino transport, you could just footslog all the way and their Zeal can possibly compensate for the lack of transports. If a transport is needed, they do have access to the Crusader Raider, which is still well priced imo.

You could just have looked at the '40k general discussion' front page and seen topics already on this subject.

Main point, old codices that were showing their age, now have faqs so are useable again

GW hit a "let's make the Codexes as boring as possible" phase when they last got to Dark Angels. For me, it's not so much the competitive aspect of it all, its the lack of interesting options/rules that would have made them fun to play.

The final insult was the Space Marine codex released less than a year later which had loads more wargear, captains with a higher weapon skill than Azrael and stubborn given to Imperial/Crimson Fists.

That was the angriest I have ever been with GW. I threw my copy of the DA Codex in the bin soon afterwards.