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.

Just picked up the new Codex - I can't see anything that says the BT retain their own (IMO flawed) Ally Matrix - the only relevant bit I can see is on p78 where it says that references to BT should now be C:SM?

I am hoping this is the case especially since GW took the trouble to talk about the good relationship between the Sororitas and the Black Templars on p51 (along with the Templars belief in the Emperor as Divine)

"Many times in uts glorious history, the Black Templars have gone to war alongside the devout Battle Sisters of the Adepta Sororitas and a complex web of Mutual obligation and honour has evolved" - which would make the current Desperate Allies status complete nonsense as many have always contended.....................

thanks

Hi Morden

Got mine today too! To make myself clear, I think the Sisters v Templar's ally matrix was one of the dumbest thing on there, and I would love Sisters as proper allies one day.

However, I am not sure the page 78 passage works in our favour: "For all rules purposes consider these references to instead refer to detachments from C:SM using the Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule"

The main rulebook (being an older publication) refers to the old BT codex as being Desperate Allies to the SoB. This must now be amended to refer to BT detachments from C:SM. Thus BT detachments from C:SM are referred to in the main rulebook as desperate allies to SoB.

That's my thinking anyway, I would be interested to see anyone else's interpretation. I imagine this being FAQ'd at some point.

I would disagree with the above.

There is now no such thing as a Black Templar Army. You are now playing a Space Marine Army using the BT chapter tactics.

Since there's no such thing as a BT army, the BT column/row on the Allies matrix no longer applies. You would look to the SM column/row, since that's the army you're playing.

I thought the same as Eric but our local GW rep thought the same as Wildething - hence the post for others thoughts

If you would like to refer to the BT column/row in the Allies Matrix, please state how you think you have a detachment from Codex: Black Templar. since in order to use the Matrix you must "find the row for the codex of your primary detachment" (BRB 113).
BT players now have a primary detachment from Space Marines. There's really no argument otherwise.

If I play Iron Fists, do I need to find their row in the Matrix? (The obvious answer to this silly question is "No.")

There is a Designer's Note on page 78 that declares that any old reference to a Black Templar's army now refers to detachments from Codex: Space Marine using the Black Templars chapter tactics for ANY rules purporses. Therefore I would still continue to use the same Ally Matrix

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I would disagree with the above.

There is now no such thing as a Black Templar Army. You are now playing a Space Marine Army using the BT chapter tactics.

Since there's no such thing as a BT army, the BT column/row on the Allies matrix no longer applies. You would look to the SM column/row, since that's the army you're playing.

This is my view as well. BT are no longer their own army. Meaning they do not have a valid entry in the 6th rulebook. They fall under Space Marines with Black Templar tactics now and use SM rules. BTW codex trumps Rulebook. Basic rules page 7.

 conker249 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I would disagree with the above.

There is now no such thing as a Black Templar Army. You are now playing a Space Marine Army using the BT chapter tactics.

Since there's no such thing as a BT army, the BT column/row on the Allies matrix no longer applies. You would look to the SM column/row, since that's the army you're playing.

This is my view as well. BT are no longer their own army. Meaning they do not have a valid entry in the 6th rulebook. They fall under Space Marines with Black Templar tactics now and use SM rules. BTW codex trumps Rulebook. Basic rules page 7.

Your view is unfortunately wrong.

Pg 78 of the new codex: Designer's Note: Some older publications may refer to 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."

That is pretty darn clear.

................and that is the debate -hopefully they will FAQ so its actually in line with the actual text of the text entry in the Codex rather than a direct contradiciton.

dosiere wrote:

 conker249 wrote:

 Elric Greywolf wrote:
I would disagree with the above.

There is now no such thing as a Black Templar Army. You are now playing a Space Marine Army using the BT chapter tactics.

Since there's no such thing as a BT army, the BT column/row on the Allies matrix no longer applies. You would look to the SM column/row, since that's the army you're playing.

This is my view as well. BT are no longer their own army. Meaning they do not have a valid entry in the 6th rulebook. They fall under Space Marines with Black Templar tactics now and use SM rules. BTW codex trumps Rulebook. Basic rules page 7.

Your view is unfortunately wrong.

Pg 78 of the new codex: Designer's Note: Some older publications may refer to 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."

That is pretty darn clear.

Sadly, this. Makes absolutely 0 sense whatsoever, but them's the rules. I could see it getting FAQ'd though.

 Mr Morden wrote:
................and that is the debate -hopefully they will FAQ so its actually in line with the actual text of the text entry in the Codex rather than a direct contradiciton.

What do you mean? Where is the contradiction?

The Old Ally Matrix states that the BT and SOB are desperate Allies, unlike the other Chapters - the new Codex states the exact opoosite -:

"Although they are under no obligation to offer any aid, the Black Templars often find common purpose with the Ecclesiarchy. Many times in their glorious history, the Black Templars have gone to war alongside the devout Battle Sisters of the Adepta Sororitas, and a complex web of mutual obligation and honour has evolved."

Pg 78 of the new codex: Designer's Note: Some older publications may refer to 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 guess I am reading this different than dosiere because it states what I said.
Dont use old codex BT, Use New codex SM with BT tactics. To me that's "pretty darn clear" that you use SM rules. This is personal opinion just like everyone else and of course means it doesn't mean anything in any authoritative matter.

I still don't understand. There is a (for once very clear) rule in the new codex describing how it works.

dosiere wrote:
I still don't understand. There is a (for once very clear) rule in the new codex describing how it works.

The Contradiction is clear - if the old Ally matrix is in play - its in direct contradiciton to the specific fluff in the new Codex - given that the Matrix is supposed to be fluff and narrative based - its a nonsense...............

The part of the designer note that says don't refer to codex BT and to INSTEAD refer to Codex SM with BT tactics.

 conker249 wrote:
Pg 78 of the new codex: Designer's Note: Some older publications may refer to 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 guess I am reading this different than dosiere because it states what I said.
Dont use old codex BT, Use New codex SM with BT tactics. To me that's "pretty darn clear" that you use SM rules. This is personal opinion just like everyone else and of course means it doesn't mean anything in any authoritative matter.

Ah, so you are saying this designers note is written regarding just the old BT codex? So the note is there telling you that this codex, specifically the Black Templars chapter tactics, replaces the old codex? That is not what the Designers Note says. It says "older publications", which includes of course, the main rulebook.

If true this is what needs faqing so it actually fits with what they have written, taking the trouble to clarify the whole nature of the Black Templars and their realationship with the Imperial Cult and the Sororitas.

Otherwise its just stupid.

I have stated my view, You can play however you want.

 Mr Morden wrote:

dosiere wrote:
I still don't understand. There is a (for once very clear) rule in the new codex describing how it works.

The Contradiction is clear - if the old Ally matrix is in play - its in direct contradiciton to the specific fluff in the new Codex - given that the Matrix is supposed to be fluff and narrative based - its a nonsense...............

Ah, I thought you were talking about ac actual rule.

Yes, it probably makes no sense after reading an (albeit very small piece) of fluff. It makes even less sense than Space Marines being battle brothers with the Tau though. They are mentioned as enemies all over the place in the new codex.

Its a very important piece of fluff.

The Black Templars are the only Chapter who the Codex states have a specifically good relationship with the Sororitas - which is why the old ally Matrix is soo very wrong.

And I agree about the Tau - but thats purely to sell more models so less likely to change. Changing the BT Ally Matrix to something that it is line with the actual Codex costs them nothing,

 conker249 wrote:
I have stated my view, You can play however you want.

Meh, I'm not sure we are speaking the same language. You are saying older publications = old BT codex only. This makes little sense based on the passage, since it specifically says "older publications may refer to Codex:Black Templars..", meaning older publications other than the old BT codex referring to Codex; Black Templars.

It's not a matter of how you or I play. If you want to house rule something go ahead, but the designers note is applicable to the main rulebook. It's not a view/opinion/speculation it's what it says.

Please understand something: I actually think it's silly BT cannot ally with Sisters, and would allow it in a game since it's cool and it makes sense. But the OP wanted to know what the new codex says about using the old allies matrix, and it says to keep using the BT column.

edit- they can ally of course but it's desperate allies, which is admittedly silly then and now.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:
Its a very important piece of fluff.

The Black Templars are the only Chapter who the Codex states have a specifically good relationship with the Sororitas - which is why the old ally Matrix is soo very wrong.

And I agree about the Tau - but thats purely to sell more models so less likely to change. Changing the BT Ally Matrix to something that it is line with the actual Codex costs them nothing,

I agree with everything you say here. If I was writing the new codex I would have changed it. But I'm not and they didn't.

This sounds like the perfect opportunity to get a house rule about it at your LGS though. There is of course the possibility that they change it in a FAQ, who knows!

I guess it may help solve the confusion if the following sentence (which is somewhat badly worded imo) would be taken apart for analysis:

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

#1 Older publications includes the 6E Rulebook.
#2 All rules purposes includes the Allies Matrix
#3 "detachments from C:SM using Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule" = a Codex: Space Marines army using Black Templars special rules as printed in Codex: Space Marines

So that sentence essentially says: "Anything that referred to the Black Templars Codex now refers to Codex Space Marines with C:SM Black Templars special rules"

Moving on:

6E Rulebook wrote:Find the row for the Codex of your primary detachment on the left side of the matrix.

#1 Whatever army you play, you are supposed to use the chart of the Codex you're using to play it.

As conker249 suggested, this would mean that, for all intents and purposes, the Black Templars are now treated as Codex Space Marines. Unless the aforementioned BT special rules in the Codex include a line that says "they may not ally with X" or "they still use their own allies row", their position in the rulebook's allies chart has been effectively rendered null and void.

And good riddance I say.

... although they should actually be Battle Brothers from how the new fluff describes it ... but that'd be asking too much.

EDIT, Ninja'd with same opinion lol

Hmm that is a different way to look at it. I will have to think about this.

If the intention was to say "ignore references to Codex: Black Templars since Black Templars are now a Codex: Space Marine army" why didn't they just say that? Wouldn't the Codex: Black Templars allies matrix be the perfect example of the designers note being used? It's an older publication referring to Codex: Black Templars. The designers note about using the Black Templars rules in older publications trumps the main rulebook, being in a codex. ??


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Lynata wrote:
I guess it may help solve the confusion if the following sentence (which is somewhat badly worded imo) would be taken apart for analysis:

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

#1 Older publications includes the 6E Rulebook.
#2 All rules purposes includes the Allies Matrix
#3 "detachments from C:SM using Black Templar Chapter Tactics special rule" = a Codex: Space Marines army using Black Templars special rules as printed in Codex: Space Marines

So that sentence essentially says: "Anything that referred to the Black Templars Codex now refers to Codex Space Marines with C:SM Black Templars special rules"

quote]

OK yes here is where I don't follow you, with #3. Yes, it does mean you are referring to the new Black Templars in Codex: Space marines. It also says for all rules purposes, which means you still use the rules though.

What you are saying is this: "Ignore references to Codex: Black Templars sine the Black Templars are now Codex: Space Marines." That is not what it says. In fact the whole point of the designers note is to make an exception here, stating that you still use any rules referring to Codex: Black Templars for a Black Templars army using the new Codex: Space Marines.

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..."

Example of a euphemism. instead of ignore, use please refer to.

Sisters and BT should be Battle Brothers. Both are sorely lacking in such options and it doesn't introduce anything game breaking like psykers.

An Arch Confessor leading a 20 man strong on Neophytes into battle sounds like a blast. Or, I dunno, Sisters getting valid AA options, CC choices, and a bit more depth outside of a handful of useful unit types, a handful of bad ones, and then not much else?

Might make people slow grow into them or a better case for a better 'dex.

It's maddening.

 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?

 conker249 wrote:
Example of a euphemism. instead of ignore, use please refer to.

It's not a euphemism. I think you were going for "synonym", but it isn't one of those either.

 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?

That's not what it says.