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.

Hey Guys,

I have no sources for this whatsoever, but ive seen several people making comments about it here on Dakka and on other sites as well.

Is it true that the Black Templars are going to be rolled into the next SM codex (whenever that is)? I know that its probably early days in 6th to be thinking about this, but I really really hope this isn't true. I've been playing Templars for the better part of 12 years, and the thought of them losing their status as a codex army really concerns me. I dismissed the first few comments I saw about this as conjecture, but one comment I read (about templars not being mentioned in the rulebook) really got me thinking - they aren't there much at all, only in fleeting references.

So just wondering if anyone else has heard anything, rumour or otherwise - say it ain't so GW!

I don't see why it would concern you overly much. If done correctly you would still be able to field the exact same army with the same rules. But yes I have also heard a lot of people talking about it so it is a possibility.

It's just talk for the moment. I don't think any of our accurate rumor sources have even mentioned the BTs.

I am pretty sure GW already said that no other Codex are being axe'd as stand alone Codexs. Also they would sell more with them separate (for those people with C:SM and C:BT). I don't see any real reason for them to do it.

The Templars could be far off as 6th has just started. Chaos is next and chaos wasn't mentioned that often in 5th ed fluff.
Without any reliable source pointing to anything merged, I would doubt GW risks the wrath of the BT..
BTW, BT have their own place in the allies matrix. Others who are stuck in codex blue-marines have not.

The only hint as to that happening has been the presentation of armies in the "Army showcase" section of the rulebook.

SW, BA, GK were standaloen armies. BT was presented in the same section as normal SM - UM, CF, IF, Salamanders, etc.

 liam0404 wrote:


Is it true that the Black Templars are going to be rolled into the next SM codex (whenever that is)?

No one on this forum can answer that with 100% certainty.

If GW were to say firmly, either way, there will be a 20 page thread in the News and Rumors section within 24 hours.

So, for now, don't worry about it.

As a Dark Angels player I actually want Black Templars to get the new dex before mine, they really need it

Lets hope so, there's way too many MEQ codex's as there is. Really only GK are the only one who should have their own.

They should do one big marine dex with ALL marine armies in it tbh.

And all marine players who play the more obscure marine chapters would benefit because the SM dex is regularly updated, and thus so would rules be for your chapter.

A seperate dex for non-core armies is sometimes the kiss of death.

Oh look this is already degrading into a "ALL MARINE CODICES SHOULD BE FOLDED INTO ONE BROUHAHA!"

Anywho I really doubt they are going to get rid of another codex, new codices means more $$, and lets face it GW is a money making company.


EDIT: I are a tardo munkee that cantz speelz

From Games Day Australia this week:

Jeremy Vetock:

I asked about any word on Black Templars being updated. On his own accord he said Black Templars are in a difficult situation... do they put them into Codex Space Marines or do they keep their own book.

Jeremy Vetock is a Fantasy armybook writer who's now writing 40k stuff too, if you weren't aware. I can see the issue that Templars kind of overlap with Blood Angels, Space Wolves, and to a degree Chaos Marines in that their schtick is "Marines but choppier" at its core. There's a lot of potential in them as an army though, and I don't see GW essentially Squatting another army. Rolling them into Vanilla Marines would be a hell of a "Chapter Tactics" ruling to include Neophytes and Righteous Zeal and stuff. I wouldn't like it if they got cut, even though I don't play them.

The only way that I can see the BT and SM codexes being combined would be if they re-introduced the chapter creator from 4th edition, but much significantly more options that are available and that you can take. Since they are moving away from this trend, I would not expect BT to be rolled into the main codex. The only codex I really see as "at risk" is actually the Dark Angels codex.

There may be some evidence that Black Templars are being rolled back into Codex Space Marines, if you believe that the leaked release list is real. Nestled among the Space Marine releases are these two items:

200465411540206 Space Marine Bike Squadron / Crusader Bike Squadron PL a15 Len_A 02 cc
200468011440204 Space Marine Sword Brethren / Nightflame Veteran Squad PL a14 Len_A 02 cc

A Crusader Bike Squadron mixed on the same sprue as a normal Bike Squadron would seem to indicate that the units were in the same codex. Likewise, I may not be positive that Nightflame Veterans are not Black Templars but if they are a more generic veteran squad then it would seem that Sword Brethren are in Codex Space Marines.

With the recent rulings in the FAQ, I'll be playing my Templars as Codex Space Marines anyway.

This issue has been under the gun since 6th ed came out. Since we had a lousy 4 pictures in the whole 400+ page BRB. There is nothing saying we will, or will not be rolled in to codex marines. People are just making up rumors about this, and speculating about what could happen.

IMO there is no reason for us to me rolled back in.

There are a lot of previous threads on this if you want to look through all the old postings.

 liam0404 wrote:
Hey Guys,

I have no sources for this whatsoever, but ive seen several people making comments about it here on Dakka and on other sites as well.

Is it true that the Black Templars are going to be rolled into the next SM codex (whenever that is)? I know that its probably early days in 6th to be thinking about this, but I really really hope this isn't true. I've been playing Templars for the better part of 12 years, and the thought of them losing their status as a codex army really concerns me. I dismissed the first few comments I saw about this as conjecture, but one comment I read (about templars not being mentioned in the rulebook) really got me thinking - they aren't there much at all, only in fleeting references.

So just wondering if anyone else has heard anything, rumour or otherwise - say it ain't so GW!

Aside from simply not having their chapter name as the book title, there's not much reason for their own book. Their differences from a codex chapter can fit on one page in terms of real (i.e. not attributable to edition/design studio paradigm changes) divergences with regards to gameplay (mixed scout/tac equivalents in one unit, vows, and Emp's Champion...done).

The same honestly could go for SW's, DA's, and BA's, especially before they added a ton of stuff to BA's to justify their existence as a distinct book (though still generally boils down to an extra USR here, a weapon swap there, etc)

That said, nobody knows if they'll be folded into C:SM, and won't for some time.

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/0/458598.page

This is one of the few links to this previous discussion.

Aside from simply not having their chapter name as the book title, there's not much reason for their own book. Their differences from a codex chapter can fit on one page in terms of real (i.e. not attributable to edition/design studio paradigm changes) divergences with regards to gameplay. The same honestly could go for SW's, DA's, and BA's, especially before they added a ton of stuff to BA's to justify their existence as a distinct book (though still generally boils down to an extra USR here, a weapon swap there, etc)

That said, nobody knows, and won't for some time.

Black Templars are not a codex marine chapter though. Thats why they have there own book. Technically, any marine army that does not follow the codex should be in a book of there own. It would make sense.

There was a post a while back about making 2 books for all space marines: Codex marines (ie Ultramarins, Imperial Fists ect) and Non-Codex Marines: (ie Black Templars, Space Wolves?, and any others that dont follow the codex rules)

 Deathwolf wrote:
There may be some evidence that Black Templars are being rolled back into Codex Space Marines, if you believe that the leaked release list is real. Nestled among the Space Marine releases are these two items:

200465411540206 Space Marine Bike Squadron / Crusader Bike Squadron PL a15 Len_A 02 cc
200468011440204 Space Marine Sword Brethren / Nightflame Veteran Squad PL a14 Len_A 02 cc

A Crusader Bike Squadron mixed on the same sprue as a normal Bike Squadron would seem to indicate that the units were in the same codex. Likewise, I may not be positive that Nightflame Veterans are not Black Templars but if they are a more generic veteran squad then it would seem that Sword Brethren are in Codex Space Marines.

If you look closely at the bits and backpacks of regular tactical marines you will see parts to make BT backpacks. It would not surprise me if they did the same for new kits. You could use the same info to suggest that a BT codex is in the works. GW does seem to be making kits more useful from a bits perspective.

 Insurgency Walker wrote:

If you look closely at the bits and backpacks of regular tactical marines you will see parts to make BT backpacks.

Care to elaborate? I don't think I've spotted what you have.

J99Pwrangler wrote:


Black Templars are not a codex marine chapter though. Thats why they have there own book.

They have their own book because they were very popular after the Armageddon book came out in 3E and were the posterboys for the 3E rulebook/starter. They worked fine in Codex: Space Marines or as a 1 page modification until halfway through 4th edition.

Technically, any marine army that does not follow the codex should be in a book of there own. It would make sense.

By this logic, Catachans, Mordians, Valhallans, Tallarn, Goffs, Deathskulls Blood Axes, Ulthwe, Iyanden, Alaitoc, Farsight Enclave, etc all need their own books too. You can see the problem this presents then.

A good codex should be able to cover divergent factions, and most do that, hence why we don't have sublists for all of the above.

Codex: Space Marines is not just Codex: Codex Astartes Adherent Chapters. there's plenty of divergent chapters in that book that structurally are much more divergent than say, BA's and DA's at the very least (e.g. Iron Hands).


For gameplay purposes, there's just no reason Black Templars require their own book. Their meaningful differences could fit as a one-page addendum to C:SM. Any list that is *that* similar to another does not require its own separate codex to be played faithfully.


That said, we have no idea what GW will do with the army as yet, and they've given no indication that they're going to fold the book into C:SM as yet.

I honestly would not mind if all the marine 'dex's were rolled back into one providing the specific rules for the unique individual armies remained.
The downside to this, of course, would be the The Big Book of Space Marines which would collapse gaming tables in it's wake.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
To which the solution would be to purchase a digital codex.

Anybody here a GW employee? No? Good, BT is safe.

Inside scoop at B&C is Phil Kelly is working on our Dex.

 d3m01iti0n wrote:
Anybody here a GW employee? No? Good, BT is safe.

Inside scoop at B&C is Phil Kelly is working on our Dex.

To be fair, that rumor has been repeating on and off for the last 3 years after it blipped on Warseer shortly after the IG book was released.

By this logic, Catachans, Mordians, Valhallans, Tallarn, Goffs, Deathskulls Blood Axes, Ulthwe, Iyanden, Alaitoc, Farsight Enclave, etc all need their own books too. You can see the problem this presents then.

By this logic, Imperial Guard, orks, eldar and anyone else listed, has nothing to do with this conversation. Different command structure. I played Black Templars with my Armageddon codex back in the day, as well. But most of our units dont work like a codex marine (as of yet).

A good codex should be able to cover divergent factions, and most do that, hence why we don't have sublists for all of the above.

Codex: Space Marines is not just Codex: Codex Astartes Adherent Chapters. there's plenty of divergent chapters in that book that structurally are much more divergent than say, BA's and DA's at the very least (e.g. Iron Hands).

This is the point I am trying to get across. If a space marine chapter does not follow the codex, they should be in a book of there own "non-codex marines" This is just my opinion tho.

As of right now d3m01iti0n man is correct. There is NO information about Black Templars being rolled in to Space marine codex. Mostly all templar players (and others) still want a seperate codex.

The only real question was the snubbing from the new rule book, and even that doesnt say much as we still get an ally chart listing.

There is nothing to worry about people there has been nothing to say this just a mistake in the picture layout of the fluff. Please wait until something comes out to actually support an idea that goes directly against what GW has said in the past.

J99Pwrangler wrote:

By this logic, Imperial Guard, orks, eldar and anyone else listed, has nothing to do with this conversation.

If we're calling anything that has a different structure even if it otherwise shares the vast majority of its units, rules, etc. worthy of it's own book, it does.

I played Black Templars with my Armageddon codex back in the day, as well. But most of our units dont work like a codex marine (as of yet).

Most of them play pretty similarly or identical to their equivalents in C:SM, or at least did relative to the Space Marine codex that was current when the BT book came out.

This is the point I am trying to get across. If a space marine chapter does not follow the codex, they should be in a book of there own "non-codex marines" This is just my opinion tho.

The problem is that there's relatively little in terms of gameplay that would require that, and there's tons of marine chapters that aren't exactly very codex adherent that still use the basic SM codex, and by such justification there's hundreds of other factions that could justify their own book as well on the exact same grounds. Catachan's certainly operate entirely differently than Mordians or Tallarn do, and hell, at one point even had their own codex. But they're able to be done relatively well with on C:IG and thus don't really require their own book, any more than BT, DA's, etc do

but as we've all stated, it's moot as there's no indication one way or the other what GW is planning on doing with them or that their release is in any way imminent.

Thanks for all the responses so far guys.

I can see the argument as to why they don't need their own codex, but I disagree. Look at all the new chapter specific toys you can get now:

-Furiosos
-Dreadknights
-Fenrisian Wolves
-Sang Guard
-Paladins
-Thunderwolves

I think that if this trend continues (and assuming we DO get a new codex at some stage), then the templars will also get some shiny new toys - I think there is enough diversity in these codexes to justify their existence - it would be a massive book indeed to roll all these extra units and ruls into a single volume.

At which point the argument inevitably turns to "but those things are only added/hamfisted in/similar because they needed an artificial reason to have their own Codex" or something to that effect. Have I seen one too many of these threads? You bet I have.