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.

Bladeguard, Eradicators.

ya know, here's a thought.....

right now we've got a fair number of marine releases. eradicators, bladeguard, the speeders, heavy intercessors. given the way GW's been drip feeding the marine releases I'm not sure it makes sense for all this to come out in january with the dark angels... could we be getting a black templars supplement after the DA supplement?

No point. A pure BT supplement would be so thin, it wouldn't even be practical to wrap hardback covers around it.

I think there's every chance we see releases throughout December. I know people say December is traditionally a dead month as far as new releases go but these are unprecedented times.

Voss wrote:
No point. A pure BT supplement would be so thin, it wouldn't even be practical to wrap hardback covers around it.

Unlike the absolute tomes GW produced for the Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars?

BT could add a Primaris Crusader squad if they felt like, say 5 to 10 assault or normal intercessors and 5 reivers to help push reivers. But I think that would be later with an upgrade sprue and a primaris helbrecht or grimaldus

GoatboyBeta wrote:

Voss wrote:
No point. A pure BT supplement would be so thin, it wouldn't even be practical to wrap hardback covers around it.

Unlike the absolute tomes GW produced for the Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars?

I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit

 alextroy wrote:

GoatboyBeta wrote:

Voss wrote:
No point. A pure BT supplement would be so thin, it wouldn't even be practical to wrap hardback covers around it.

Unlike the absolute tomes GW produced for the Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars?

I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit

Black Templars IMHO never really recovered from losing their codex. :(

 alextroy wrote:
I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit

And yet they lost their Codex. That seems like a pretty big deal.

Wouldn't it suck if your army had a Codex, and suddenly lost it one day? Or would you be here bleating about unit counts and acting as if it ain't no thang?

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit

And yet they lost their Codex. That seems like a pretty big deal.

Wouldn't it suck if your army had a Codex, and suddenly lost it one day? Or would you be here bleating about unit counts and acting as if it ain't no thang?

TWO codexes for black marines?

*throws christmas pudding across the room*

LAST edition I had THREE codexes for black marines!!!!

GoatboyBeta wrote:

Voss wrote:
No point. A pure BT supplement would be so thin, it wouldn't even be practical to wrap hardback covers around it.

Unlike the absolute tomes GW produced for the Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Raven Guard, Salamanders and White Scars?

That's literally exactly the point.

IF are the parent first founding chapter, and they split their whole 64 pages with one of their progeny. How far many mole hills do you need to build in the face of increasing opposition to Yet More Space Marines?
The hike to the last codex of 9th edition is long enough as is. Don't add more pot holes to the road.

 AduroT wrote:

 Dysartes wrote:

 Tiberius501 wrote:
A little disappointed with the dice but they seem nice enough.

What's wrong with the dice, other than the probably price tag? Blood drops as pips is subtle, yet effective, the Chapter symbol is only on the 6, and red on black is a nicely visible colour combination.

They’re kind of bland.

Yeah, basically this. They’re totally fine and I like the colour scheme. I just hope they’re cheaper being less detailed than the others and being in a blister instead of a reusable cigarette box.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit

And yet they lost their Codex. That seems like a pretty big deal.

Wouldn't it suck if your army had a Codex, and suddenly lost it one day? Or would you be here bleating about unit counts and acting as if it ain't no thang?

They gained WAY more in terms of options and power level from said consolidation. Vows were dumb and never well balanced anyway. Y'all need to get the feth over it.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

 alextroy wrote:
I must be hard being a Black Templar. So far from people's thoughts that no one realizes you have twice the unit units (5) that exist for Imperial Fist (2), Iron Hands (1), Raven Guard (1), Salamanders (2) or White Scars (2) before GW adds an obligatory new Primaris model or unit

And yet they lost their Codex. That seems like a pretty big deal.

Wouldn't it suck if your army had a Codex, and suddenly lost it one day? Or would you be here bleating about unit counts and acting as if it ain't no thang?

They gained WAY more in terms of options and power level from said consolidation. Vows were dumb and never well balanced anyway. Y'all need to get the feth over it.

At the cost of their distinct flavour and role in an increasingly limited design space. It's incredibly condescending to tell people who stuck around for their distinct unorthodoxy from being heavily deviant from the Codex Astartes (certainly more than Blood Angels and Dark Angels in terms of overall composition before they both had model additions out the wazoo) that being rolled into the main codex was a good thing. Half of their schtick was how they went above codex numbers from how much they spread themselves across crusades and the way in which they conducted war moved away from having the conventional combined arms approach of codex tactics, hence the use of crusader squads. You can see the difference from how they abhored the witch to the point that they didn't have Librarians. Being rolled in and taking away vows basically relegated BT to being a slightly more choppy oriented codex chapter with restrictions. The lack of focus is only slowly being addressed, and even now when compared to BA and SW, how do they really distinguish themselves compared to them in CC?

I mean they still have an upgrade sprue... and unique aesthetic. Chains, braziers, oath papers and crosses and monastic robes etc.

I wish we would just eb happy with aesthetic differences between models without need some minor rules for minor things..

Because you get to this silly point where having the biggest codex and the most varied array of options and the most powerful set of rules is still not enough because you dont have even more options because some other sub faction within your faction has more... I wonder if we are trapped in this endless bloat spiral or if GW will go back to a standardised model for all the factions.

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Y'all need to get the feth over it.

Hi. I'm HBMC and I've never played Black Templars, so really I don't have a dog in this fight.

What I despise however, is when people try to justify why others should have their army taken away, or why they shouldn't get it back.

"You've got more units!"
"Get over it!"

Y'know, gak like that.

Don't tell people they're having fun the wrong way, or that they don't deserve to have their own army, especially when it was taken away from then.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Y'all need to get the feth over it.

Hi. I'm HBMC and I've never played Black Templars, so really I don't have a dog in this fight.

What I despise however, is when people try to justify why others should have their army taken away, or why they shouldn't get it back.

"You've got more units!"
"Get over it!"

Y'know, gak like that.

Don't tell people they're having fun the wrong way, or that they don't deserve to have their own army, especially when it was taken away from then.

This.

At the very least, they could have gotten a dedicated spot as part of the IF supplement or their own supplement. I really don't see why they don't get a supplement when Salamanders, Raven Guard or Iron Hands do, especially with two characters with as much lore as Grimaldus and Helbrecht backing them up.

However, I do like what they did with they WD supplement, giving them unique chaplain prayers and all..
And it's not like bringing them up date wouldn't be super easy - simply mix blade guard and assault intercessors into primaris crusader unit, toss in upgrade sprue, update helbrecht and grimaldus to primaris, done. At this point one would simply have to assume that they don't want to. With the indomitus box I was seriously thinking about starting them, but with GW treating them this way, I'd have to expect them to disappear completely the second they discontinue their finecast models.

 H.B.M.C. wrote:

Slayer-Fan123 wrote:
Y'all need to get the feth over it.

Hi. I'm HBMC and I've never played Black Templars, so really I don't have a dog in this fight.

What I despise however, is when people try to justify why others should have their army taken away, or why they shouldn't get it back.

"You've got more units!"
"Get over it!"

Y'know, gak like that.

Don't tell people they're having fun the wrong way, or that they don't deserve to have their own army, especially when it was taken away from then.

I played Black Templars from before the Armageddon supplement gave them their first taste of individual rules to end of 6th ed or start of 7th ed. I'm not of the opinion that losing the 4th ed codex was this massive blow to the character of Black Templars that it's sometimes made out to be. Most options were still available, and all it took to replicate the absence of certain units like Librarians or Whirlwinds was to just not take them.

In my opinion it was general game design that made Black Templars feel off as the editions progressed with GW's obsession to make the usefulness of close combat ever narrower and increasing the deadliness of shooting to absurd levels. You would be left with the choice of playing an ineffective but fluffy army or jumping on the shooty bandwagon and abandon the character of your army, with little choice in between.

This isn't fixed by having a codex but by having army specific rules that account for the shift in the core rules. That could happen in a standalone codex, or a supplement, or just a page or two of rules in the general Marine codex. The important thing isn't where the rules are located but that GW recognizes that they need to exist at all. Which isn't a problem limited to Black Templars but a general design issue that's been plaguing 40k for over a decade. It's no different than addressing armies that are psyker heavy per their background but can't function (whether they are too powerful or not powerful enough) because an edition's psychic phase isn't designed to handle more than two or three psykers.

I'm not a fan of all these Marine supplements, but I agree that if chapters with a less notable history of rules support like White Scars of Raven Guard warrant a supplement, so should Black Templars. In the grand scheme of things, what's one more book? Supplements are not my ideal solution, but in the state of the game as it's presented right now it's bogus to hand out all these supplements but stop short of Black Templars.

 Argive wrote:
I wish we would just eb happy with aesthetic differences between models without need some minor rules for minor things..

Me, too. But in this age of bespoke rules it looks like that's not what a lot of players want. Nor GW, for that matter.

 Argive wrote:
Because you get to this silly point where having the biggest codex and the most varied array of options and the most powerful set of rules is still not enough because you dont have even more options because some other sub faction within your faction has more... I wonder if we are trapped in this endless bloat spiral or if GW will go back to a standardised model for all the factions.

As I see it too many people love their little special rules, and GW loves how they can leverage this to sell all these extra books to those players. I don't see that change anytime soon, not the least because 8th ed could have been that but instead just shifted around the mess of rules from 7th ed to a new format without actually introducing a simplification of the system as 3rd ed did. GW is likely to ride the current core rules for another edition or two before another revolutionary change to the core rules happens.

JWBS wrote:
I think there's every chance we see releases throughout December. I know people say December is traditionally a dead month as far as new releases go but these are unprecedented times.

GW Community Team said on FB that Death Guard will be a December release.

beast_gts wrote:

JWBS wrote:
I think there's every chance we see releases throughout December. I know people say December is traditionally a dead month as far as new releases go but these are unprecedented times.

GW Community Team said on FB that Death Guard will be a December release.

They said that long time ago in road plan. Oddity is it not being together with ba but sooner or later it comes.

Now does it being separate from ba indicate　it's more substantial　release than most armies will be　is the real question.

Might just mean they don't want a full 'dex sharing the release weekend with the Battleforce boxes, but they're happy for a Codex Supplement to do so.

Maybe the Death Guard called in sick?

 Grimskul wrote:
At the cost of their distinct flavour and role in an increasingly limited design space.

What flavor/design space??

I played BT in 4th, and their book was literally identical in all respects to Codex marines save for Emperor's Champion (who can now be replicated with Chapter Champion) and Crusader squad (that was funnily enough played by most BT players as las/plas minmax, so very similar to Codex MSU). Yes, there was sometimes 12/16 dudes in Land Raider, but that was an outlier, Termies or veterans were better and taken in 95% of the cases. Yes, DA probably should have been rolled into Codex first but the ease with which BT were made Codex army should tell you something.

You want to see real loss of flavour and design space, look at worthless crap that is DW supplement

 Jidmah wrote:
I really don't see why they don't get a supplement when Salamanders, Raven Guard or Iron Hands do, especially with two characters with as much lore as Grimaldus and Helbrecht backing them up.

If amount of lore and good writing was in any way influencing that decision, Blood Ravens should have got theirs long before all of the above. Yet here we are, with literally whos like Tome Keepers getting one first and BR having literally nothing

A huge portion of 40k's fluff stems from the Armageddon conflicts, Black Templars were a rather central part of that.

If we don't start seeing previews this week for DG, I would assume the release will be minor and half assed.

Two models, the codex/cards/campaign book plus DLC book.

My expectations are that there won't be a model release for the blightcaster, there may be a re-boxing of the blighthaulers, and the codex will still not have a plaguemarine statline Chaos Lord.

Not seeing a preview this week means nothing more than "it's not for preorder this week".

I hope the blood angels article is tonight.
I’m super curious what Death Visions will be.

PoorGravitasHandling wrote:
If we don't start seeing previews this week for DG, I would assume the release will be minor and half assed.

Two models, the codex/cards/campaign book plus DLC book.

My expectations are that there won't be a model release for the blightcaster, there may be a re-boxing of the blighthaulers, and the codex will still not have a plaguemarine statline Chaos Lord.

Previews generally come after preorders are announced. This week previews will thus be for ba. Possible something comes for　dg but odds are no. Most of the time previews don't start before preorder is even announced

BA Review: https://www.warhammer-community.com/2020/11/23/descent-of-angels-new-blood-angels-rules/

If you had "GW acknowledges Core in an article while in the same goddamn sentence rolling out a universal buff strat" please mark your bingo cards accordingly.

Also, ROFL, one cp for army wide AP increases to melee weapons in assault doctrine