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.

So the new 'dex basically says: "we don't particularly mind psykers we just don't seem to have any in our chapter...". While I understand the slight adjustment for game purposes to allow allies who have psykers, I thought the wording to be a bit awkward, I think something along the lines of "we barely tolerate the presence of loyal chapter psykers in our midst" would have been a bit more on par with the fluff while still working with the game aspect.
And then the whole "we love our Sisters and will gladly join forces with them" is rather poor since they're Desperate Allies in the BRB...
Wonder if they'll update the allies chart in a BT supplement or something...

Or maybe not mess with the fluff in the first place. Part of the appeal of alot of players to certain armies is the fluff, small tweaks maybe but something big is just stupid in my eyes. I would have rather waited longer for a proper BT codex then roll it into codex generic marine. If I wanted a generic SM chapter I would have picked something like Ultramarimes

Definitely thinking of selling my BTs now.

Rant over

phoenix darkus wrote:And then the whole "we love our Sisters and will gladly join forces with them" is rather poor since they're Desperate Allies in the BRB...

Well, a lot of people on dakka thought that the Allies Matrix was rather poor when it came out.
With the Templars-vs-SoB thing being just one of several examples where gamers would scratch their heads.

The change in stance over pskyers certainly knocked me for six at first but it still keeps the core item of abhoring the (xeno) witch, on the second point, I had always found the arrangement of the allies matrix silly, its not the hardest thing to change either, I'd love an assymetric table as it would make you think which you want to be the primary

The idea for an asymetric table is kind of cool in terms of game mechanics, but how would you justify it? The level of cooperation would always be determined by the least enthusiastic party, as that one would block any offers of friendship or cooperation that would surpass their own level of comfort, and the Allies rules represent how individuals from both armies get along with each other.
For example, fluffwise, even if the Space Wolves would have little issue with deploying alongside Sisters per se, that doesn't mean the SoB would have forgotten about the whole "being mutated and murdering priests" thing. Even if the Orks don't care about differences between Dark Angels and Black Templars, the latter may feel differently about them. etc

I haven't checked out this editions rulebook. That is shocking to hear about this change to Black Templars. The deathwatch roleplaying game goes to great lengths to stress how much Templars hate psykers. *sigh*. Won't be buying any 40k tabletop Templars then if this is the new direction they are taking them.

To be fair, the Deathwatch RPG takes a lot of things into new directions all by itself. I still like GW's version of the Deathwatch a lot more than FFG's, and find the idea to entrust a wholly independent and secretive circle of Astartes with undetectable and auto-piloted Exterminatus Kill-ships ridiculous, considering the Horus Heresy.

I agree about the psyker thing, though. It's kind of sad, and in a way even a little out of line with their (finally confirmed) appreciation for the Imperial Creed. The Ecclesiarchy and the Sisters don't have a very high opinion of psykers either, after all.

 Lynata wrote:
The idea for an asymetric table is kind of cool in terms of game mechanics, but how would you justify it? The level of cooperation would always be determined by the least enthusiastic party, as that one would block any offers of friendship or cooperation that would surpass their own level of comfort, and the Allies rules represent how individuals from both armies get along with each other.
For example, fluffwise, even if the Space Wolves would have little issue with deploying alongside Sisters per se, that doesn't mean the SoB would have forgotten about the whole "being mutated and murdering priests" thing. Even if the Orks don't care about differences between Dark Angels and Black Templars, the latter may feel differently about them. etc

I believe the 30k HH "Betrayal" book actually uses asymmetrical ally charts.