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.

Gitdakka wrote:
This is why I say we have lost nothing really.

What the templars have lost, aside from identity, is quite simple really - a BT player cannot field a force that will have a meaningful advantage as a rush/assault army against ultramarines. Nor can an ultramarines player field a force that will have a meaningful advantage in flexibility or shooting over the templars (named characters aside).

They are the same book, there is no scope for trade-offs. Though I suppose in this age of allies the concept is somewhat lost.

A.T. wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
This is why I say we have lost nothing really.

What the templars have lost, aside from identity, is quite simple really - a BT player cannot field a force that will have a meaningful advantage as a rush/assault army against ultramarines. Nor can an ultramarines player field a force that will have a meaningful advantage in flexibility or shooting over the templars (named characters aside).

They are the same book, there is no scope for trade-offs. Though I suppose in this age of allies the concept is somewhat lost.

To me the theme is enough and special rules are not essential. Even without bonus rules I could build a bike themed white scars army or raven guard focused on scout units. Who cares if some one else can build the same army with a different paint job while not being at a disadvantage?

Gitdakka wrote:
To me the theme is enough.

Beer and pretzels, nice display piece, it's only a game, etc.

A.T. wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
To me the theme is enough.

Beer and pretzels, nice display piece, it's only a game, etc.

What are you saying? That I don't take the game seriously? I'm not sure I understand you...

Gitdakka wrote:
What are you saying? That I don't take the game seriously? I'm not sure I understand you...

Playing to a theme with a codex not designed for it is a voluntary handicap - choosing for style over substance.

Which is fine for a 'beer and pretzels' game as people say, or if you fancy a challenge, or want to spot your opponent an advantage.

 conker249 wrote:
I get told every game(that has enemy psykers) that my Black Templars deny the witch is OP and beyond broken/ needs to be FAQ'd. Stopping one power on a 50% chance, that costs to use. had one opponent try and tell me that it is a stratagem to be used in my phase only, As in I use it on a unit, in preparation for a possible psyker attack, and not at all defensive in the event of him actually casting.

I've noticed that people get really protective of their psychic powers. Its really frustrating because a lot of powerful combos rely on successfully casting a certain power on a certain unit at a certain time.... but to say its "beyond broken" is ridiculous. Its a good stratagem but it was put in to make up for the fact that you *don't have any psychers of your own*. Which means you have no access to psychic support, and your only way to contest enemy psychic powers is a single strategem that only has a 50% chance of working!

I mean what does your playgroup think of Farseers, who get 2 deny rolls and can reroll a failed deny roll? Or characters with +1 to deny the witch rolls? When I play against Thousand Sons and Eldar with my Emperor's Children I basically accept that they are going manhandle me in my own psychic phase and shut me out of the warp. Its just what it is. Their psychers are just better then mine. I've had psychic phases where all 3 of my casts are either denied or failed on their own!

What does your group think of the Khorne Chaos Wargear, like the Brass Collar artifact which lets a unit deny as if it was a psycher (AND FORCES A PERILS IF IT SUCCEEDS). The World Eaters equivalent Stratagem Scorn of Sorcerery? Does your playgroup think that pure World Eaters and Khorne Daemons is OP and beyond broken as well?

A.T. wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
What are you saying? That I don't take the game seriously? I'm not sure I understand you...

Playing to a theme with a codex not designed for it is a voluntary handicap - choosing for style over substance.

Which is fine for a 'beer and pretzels' game as people say, or if you fancy a challenge, or want to spot your opponent an advantage.

I don't think you have to min/max like that to be a competative player. For example assult terminators for an ultramarines player might not benefit from their chapter tactic, but the unit might work well in their list anyways because of other synergies.

I think the units can be good in themselves and together without any added bonus rules like chapter tactics.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I will add also that I think the marine codex is designed with plenty of army variants in mind even without chapter tactics.

Tactics like Mechanised, all infantry, melee, shooting, mobility, mix. I'm sure there are plenty of good unit combinations out there for all those strategies before you add any army special rules.

A.T. wrote:

Gitdakka wrote:
What are you saying? That I don't take the game seriously? I'm not sure I understand you...

Playing to a theme with a codex not designed for it is a voluntary handicap - choosing for style over substance.

Which is fine for a 'beer and pretzels' game as people say, or if you fancy a challenge, or want to spot your opponent an advantage.

Pretty much how 40k has always been but 8th edition promised change, where everything is great and your themed army has an equal chance at being competitive as the next guy... to that point GW has failed hard so far. This is the third edition in a row where Assault is massively overestimated / overrated (and where Eldar are too good!) and where some armies continually remain on top while others never leave the bottom or shallow end.

Traditional GW balanced worked on 2 factors ... theme / narrative, which usually meant total wildcard power level (not balanced at all); and "the beginner's game" balance... if the codex is more nuance or tricky to use (Eldar) it gets lots of cheap boosts, extra tricks and deadly synergies; where as if it's an in-your-face "unfriendly to new and inexperienced" assault type army it gets ridiculously high point costs and less efficiency.

Current GW balance is somewhere between 'traditional' and the "WAAC correction meta"... but they can't seem to make up their minds and that's really keeping us from having actual balance. Alpha Strike assault is super tough on beginners... but if we're going by elite tournament standards it's pretty much a non-factor. Only thing I can say is, be sure to write GW 40kfaq@gwplc.com

As a Space Wolves player, I don't actually find Space Marines to be in a particuarly mopey place. Mine at least do well. I think it's melodrama.

The Space Marine strategems are probably worst in class. The ones that require 3 of a kind for units deserve special mention in this regard, for being basically unusable.

Anyway, I can't speak for the Black Templars specifically, but I imagine it's not that bad. Charge re-rolls can be leveraged into about a 50/50 shot of making a charge off the drop, and you can still make a little wagon circle of razorbacks for a solid shooting core. Probably isn't the strongest CT, I'd wager that to be Raven Guard, but probably also not so bad you'll be struggling every game.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
As a Space Wolves player, I don't actually find Space Marines to be in a particuarly mopey place. Mine at least do well. I think it's melodrama.

The Space Marine strategems are probably worst in class. The ones that require 3 of a kind for units deserve special mention in this regard, for being basically unusable.

Anyway, I can't speak for the Black Templars specifically, but I imagine it's not that bad. Charge re-rolls can be leveraged into about a 50/50 shot of making a charge off the drop, and you can still make a little wagon circle of razorbacks for a solid shooting core. Probably isn't the strongest CT, I'd wager that to be Raven Guard, but probably also not so bad you'll be struggling every game.

There are like 3 codex strategems i ever use: abhor the witch, hellfire shells, flakk missle (to a lesser extent). I have never used the auspex scan but I can see it being usefull. The rest of them seem too situational/bad to learn. The orbital bombardment I have tried two times and it was not good.

I've had some use out of reroll charge almost every game, but it's not a crutch, just a bonus. I stand by my point that even if we had no rules from the chapter tactics, marines in themselves are good enough to compete. The only CT that makes something worse might be the UM fall back on jump pack infantry, depending on how you read that rule.

 Gunzhard wrote:

Pretty much how 40k has always been but 8th edition promised change, where everything is great and your themed army has an equal chance at being competitive as the next guy... to that point GW has failed hard so far. This is the third edition in a row where Assault is massively overestimated / overrated (and where Eldar are too good!) and where some armies continually remain on top while others never leave the bottom or shallow end.

GW has hyped new edition always as most balanced and fun edition evah!1!!

Blame on you if you bought their marketing hype. It was always given that it won't be balanced.

tneva82 wrote:

 Gunzhard wrote:

Pretty much how 40k has always been but 8th edition promised change, where everything is great and your themed army has an equal chance at being competitive as the next guy... to that point GW has failed hard so far. This is the third edition in a row where Assault is massively overestimated / overrated (and where Eldar are too good!) and where some armies continually remain on top while others never leave the bottom or shallow end.

GW has hyped new edition always as most balanced and fun edition evah!1!!

Blame on you if you bought their marketing hype. It was always given that it won't be balanced.

I mean, compared to 6th and 7th, it probably is the most balanced and fun. Especially compared to 7th. There are outliers [GK], but for the most part things are more balanced then they've been in a long time.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Gitdakka wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
As a Space Wolves player, I don't actually find Space Marines to be in a particuarly mopey place. Mine at least do well. I think it's melodrama.

The Space Marine strategems are probably worst in class. The ones that require 3 of a kind for units deserve special mention in this regard, for being basically unusable.

Anyway, I can't speak for the Black Templars specifically, but I imagine it's not that bad. Charge re-rolls can be leveraged into about a 50/50 shot of making a charge off the drop, and you can still make a little wagon circle of razorbacks for a solid shooting core. Probably isn't the strongest CT, I'd wager that to be Raven Guard, but probably also not so bad you'll be struggling every game.

There are like 3 codex strategems i ever use: abhor the witch, hellfire shells, flakk missle (to a lesser extent). I have never used the auspex scan but I can see it being usefull. The rest of them seem too situational/bad to learn. The orbital bombardment I have tried two times and it was not good.

I've had some use out of reroll charge almost every game, but it's not a crutch, just a bonus. I stand by my point that even if we had no rules from the chapter tactics, marines in themselves are good enough to compete. The only CT that makes something worse might be the UM fall back on jump pack infantry, depending on how you read that rule.

My SW outflank stratagem is pretty nice, even coming in T2.

Marines are definitely good enough, at least at my end. For the codex-granted marines, there's some bits where they were still working out what's going on with various mechanics this edition, and it shows, but marines do seem to work fine.

not sure I'd even call GKs an outlier as they wheren't in that great a place in 7th eaither

8th ed balance wise is just as crap as 7th. It's just what is broken is different.

kombatwombat wrote:

*Seriously, I would contend that Black Templars as a faction have suffered some of the worst treatment of any 40k army after Squats.

Second founding chapters should never have gotten a codex.

What about all of the second founding chapters that have never had a codex or special character ever?

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
As a Space Wolves player, I don't actually find Space Marines to be in a particuarly mopey place. Mine at least do well. I think it's melodrama.

Ignoring statistics in favor of anecdotes is a very comfy way of maintaining one's world-view, it's true.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

*Seriously, I would contend that Black Templars as a faction have suffered some of the worst treatment of any 40k army after Squats.

Second founding chapters should never have gotten a codex.

What about all of the second founding chapters that have never had a codex or special character ever?

Why not?

Whats the difference between First Founding Chapters and Second Founding ones? They were all legionaries originally. Black Templars are 20 times more unique has a faction and in how they fight than Imperial Fists, Iron Hands, Blood Angels, or even Dark Angels.

I don't understand this mentality of "Or everybody gets the same, or no one should".

Once you get out of the original legions chapters are just one of many.

Black Templars have more rules support than any other legion that isn't first founding and better than some that are. Hardly being treated worse than any other army except Squats.

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Once you get out of the original legions chapters are just one of many.

Black Templars have more rules support than any other legion that isn't first founding and better than some that are. Hardly being treated worse than any other army except Squats.

To be fair I think all space marines are one of many, first founding or otherwise. I dont't think marines are cooler just because they were first founding. If you wanna be a purist then why not collect rainbow warriors or any of the real OG chapters?

 Scott-S6 wrote:
Once you get out of the original legions chapters are just one of many.

Black Templars have more rules support than any other legion that isn't first founding and better than some that are. Hardly being treated worse than any other army except Squats.

There is literally no reason for distinguishing between First Founding and Second Founding Chapters beyond elitism. I might be able to see an argument if you were talking about a much more recent founding or maybe an Ultramarines successor whose only reason for existence is ‘ok, Guilliman has decreed that the Legion be split up. Lot of 1000 marines number 167, stand over here, pick yourselves a team name. Lot number 168, stand over there, pick yourselves a team name.’ The Templar brethren were a thing almost as long as the Imperial Fists were, and longer than for example the Raven Guard were. Their founder was the greatest Space Marine warrior, and (after the Primarchs) one of the Big Deal characters of the Horus Heresy. So they have as much history as any of the First Founding Chapters, they’re one of the most (if not the most) widespread Chapters, and also the largest by a country mile. In a lore sense they have as much right as any First Founding Chapter to their own Codex, and much more than most.

From a practical game design point of view, for a faction to justify its own Codex it has to satisfy two things: popularity, and unique identity. Popularity seems well satisfied - a run through discussion boards, google searches and polls seems to support them having a higher popularity than most Chapters, or at least a very dedicated following. The unique identity seems well satisfied as well - along with Space Wolves, they are the most divergent Chapter from the Codex of any great renown. This uniqueness has been eroded of late due to their inclusion in the main Codex - like how if you smash a square peg into a round hole hard enough you’ll start to chip the corners off. Head back in time to 3rd Edition though and you’ll see a Chapter that went far further along the path of unique identity than the ‘Codex Compliant Chapter with a special Berserker unit’ or the ‘Codex Compliant Chapter with extra equipment for their 1st and 2nd Companies’. There is certainly much more meat to make a faction out of with Templars.

The reason I contend that they have had the worst treatment is that I can’t think of another faction that has gone from being the poster army for an entire edition, with their own unique rules, to having an entire distinct Codex, models, major release and identity, to a minor subfaction with poor rules in a Codex that doesn’t work for their play style, a handful of characters and a steadily diluting identity. It’s very nearly to the point where there is no manifest difference between playing Black Templars and black Ultramarines, and worse, that there’s getting to be less and less lore difference as well. It’s similar to telling Space Wolves players that they’re losing their Codex, losing their limelight, losing everything that makes them wolfy or Space Vikings, being rolled into the vanilla Codex and being told ‘but you get to keep Long Fangs and all your characters, and you’ll get an extra attack on your Tacticals to represent Grey Hunters.’

Oddly, it isn’t just what we’ve lost, it’s what we’ve gained. A faction is identified as much by their have-nots as their haves. For example, Dark Eldar do not have a big, slow, tough artillery piece, just as Death Guard do not have a fast, lightweight transport or Custodes a horde of chaff infantry. By not having Tacticals, Scouts or Devastators, Templars are encouraged to play to their strengths that make them unique and give them their identity. In being allowed access to all those things, that encouragement is lost and they are put on a path that takes them from ‘these guys do x and y but not z’ to ‘these guys prefer x and y to z’ to ‘these guys do x, y and z, but have a higher incidence of x and y’. There’s no incentive for players to use them in what might be called a Templar-y fashion.

I know I won’t convince you, but you’re not the one I’m trying to convince. I’m just beating this tired old drum hoping that if I do it loud enough one day GW might hear.

The 4th ed codex had some issues too regarding faction identity. If I recall correctly, they way to play that codex to it's strength, was to bring MSU 5 man crusader squads, that could bring heavy and special weapons. Also their 5man terminators could bring 2 assult cannons. So "competative" BT was all about gun line and easy access to gear.

Also in the lore page they listed both whirlwinds and scout bikers as parts of crusades, but none of those were available in the BT codex.

I'm quite bothered now that crusader squads can't take melta bombs. Some of my sergeants use those, and since im not adding scouts in marine squads I just play them as tacticals instead if crusaders.

Black Templars biggest issue is really two fold. One being a wider issue with the vanilla marine codex and the second being in black templars thing.

Simply put marines don't make good close combat troops in 8th edition.
Black Templars thing is walking Close combat or mixed squads of power armour.

Though alot of this has to do with GW's design decision to have the special codex chaptors.
Furry Marines (Space wolfs) do you secretly long for werewolves, then these are your marines
Roid Rage Marines (blood angles) want to beat things to a bloody pulp, these are your marines
Emo Marines (Dark Angels) because it's all about being dark and mysterious.

This leaves the vanilla marine codex with a very limited scope to play with to make all those Chaptor actually play well.
They can't be better than BA or Space Furries at CC that wouldn't fit in with the vision those fans have that GW cultivated.
You can't have better tech than moody marines, it's part of their dark and mysterious thing.

So we get the half hearted rapidly outclassed codex we have now.

Ultramarines get the charictors and the only loyalist primarch so far and regain CP's.
Raven guard get a -1 to hit for infantry and dreadnaughts always good.
Black Templars get larger aura ranges and reroll charges, except marines don't have good/great CC units so when are you going to be charging the enemy?
They ironically make a better gunline army than CC army.

Untill GW stops being afraid of overshadowing its special love chaptor's vanilla marines are going to be stuck at middling tier at best for 8th edition.

I remember Black Templar Whirlwinds being a thing - there’s one in Imperial Armour II - but Scout Bikers? Really?

Ice_can, I honestly think a big part of the problem you’re describing comes from Blood Angel and Dark Angel players not getting the idea of a zero sum - that is, for everything you get, you have to give something up. This led to years and years of things like ‘hey why don’t Blood Angels get Centurions?’. The answer being ‘because you get Death Company instead’, to which the response that came like clockwork was ‘but that doesn’t make sense lore-wise - they have both!’. They had a point about the lore, but game design doesn’t work that way - you have to give something up to get something else. It was a really clear argument as to why BAngles and DAngles should never have gotten their own Codexes - they had nothing they could justifiably give up lore-wise to balance what they’d gain by expanding into their own book.

Enter Black Templars. Like Space Wolves, they threw the Codex Astartes out the window and used an entirely different organisational structure. This gives a designer something of a carte blanche to add and subtract things without the ‘why don’t we get xyz’ complaints. This makes them a much stronger candidate for having their own Codex - they have a design freedom about them that the Angels lack by virtue of their being based on Codex-compliance.

I’ll give an example. Blood Angels should have Inferno Pistols, as befits their lore. So, you take away something for the sake of balance. Plasma pistols? Nope, there’s no reason for them not to have Plasma Pistols. A close combat weapon? No that’s a terrible idea. Umm...

Try the same thing with Black Templars. Their infantry should have Power Weapons and Fists as upgrades. What could they lose as a tradeoff? Well, their shtick is that they like to get up close and personal, so why not lose their long range stand and shoot guns? That could work - keep the holy trinity weapons since that works with their theme, but take away Plasma Cannons and Lascannons as the tradeoff. Similarly you could take away Devastators to give them a cheapish unit of infantry with Power Weapons. Swap out Scouts and Tacticals for Crusaders. Merge Sternguard and Vanguard into a Swiss Army knife Sword Brethren unit. These sorts of changes are much easier to justify on a Chapter that isn’t just Ultramarines+1 since they can lose things as well as gain them without trashing the lore.

kombatwombat wrote:
I remember Black Templar Whirlwinds being a thing - there’s one in Imperial Armour II - but Scout Bikers? Really?
....

Yes, 4th ed black templar codex. There is a unit listing for some crusades and the rightmost one has something like 30 bikers and 12 scout bikers. I can look it up in more detail later

Played Templars since 4th Ed - I have 2 points:

The main issue for me is that Templars no longer feel like Templars. You don't have access to all the original cool stuff from the codex that made them interesting. Just a list off the top of my head of the things lost:

- Vows
- Crusader seals & other war gear
- Sword brethren and other named units.

They've become quite bland unfortunately. I do like the unique characters, but they will force you to take a tax each game to unlock some flavour which should be army wide.

The second issue is that we don't have any cheap dedicated assault units, The crusader squads are nice and flexible, but compare them to Blood Claws getting and extra attack on the charge, or BA getting +1 to wound on the charge (and in some cases and extra attack). We've fallen a long way from the auto re-roll failed hits or the 1+ Strength we used to get in the fight phases.

Because of this, your crusader squads really lack the oomph needed on the charge compared to the other chapter equivalents - and even worse in my opinion, they just don't feel like the zealous, headstrong warriors they once were.

So to summarise:

- We have a chapter tactic to help us charge, but our units feel limp wristed on the charge compared to other chapters.
- Many of our units and gear options are no longer supported in the way they were originally intended.
- If you want to play your old models competitively with some semblance of fightiness - You're honestly better off using the BA codex or even the SW index. - Especially the Blood Angels in my opinion, you gain all these awesome rules and strategems for the fight phase, but don't even lose access to the best fire support options.

Swek Dog wrote:
Played Templars since 4th Ed - I have 2 points:

The main issue for me is that Templars no longer feel like Templars. You don't have access to all the original cool stuff from the codex that made them interesting. Just a list off the top of my head of the things lost:

- Vows
- Crusader seals & other war gear
- Sword brethren and other named units.
...

Can I ask why you can't make your sword brethren from the vanguard or sternguard or company veteran squads?
I fail to see what unit we can't use anymore.

The only wargear I miss is the holy orb of antioch because it was pretty cool, but not like I ever modelled one or those.

kombatwombat wrote:
I remember Black Templar Whirlwinds being a thing - there’s one in Imperial Armour II - but Scout Bikers? Really?

Ice_can, I honestly think a big part of the problem you’re describing comes from Blood Angel and Dark Angel players not getting the idea of a zero sum - that is, for everything you get, you have to give something up. This led to years and years of things like ‘hey why don’t Blood Angels get Centurions?’. The answer being ‘because you get Death Company instead’, to which the response that came like clockwork was ‘but that doesn’t make sense lore-wise - they have both!’. They had a point about the lore, but game design doesn’t work that way - you have to give something up to get something else. It was a really clear argument as to why BAngles and DAngles should never have gotten their own Codexes - they had nothing they could justifiably give up lore-wise to balance what they’d gain by expanding into their own book.

Enter Black Templars. Like Space Wolves, they threw the Codex Astartes out the window and used an entirely different organisational structure. This gives a designer something of a carte blanche to add and subtract things without the ‘why don’t we get xyz’ complaints. This makes them a much stronger candidate for having their own Codex - they have a design freedom about them that the Angels lack by virtue of their being based on Codex-compliance.

I’ll give an example. Blood Angels should have Inferno Pistols, as befits their lore. So, you take away something for the sake of balance. Plasma pistols? Nope, there’s no reason for them not to have Plasma Pistols. A close combat weapon? No that’s a terrible idea. Umm...

Try the same thing with Black Templars. Their infantry should have Power Weapons and Fists as upgrades. What could they lose as a tradeoff? Well, their shtick is that they like to get up close and personal, so why not lose their long range stand and shoot guns? That could work - keep the holy trinity weapons since that works with their theme, but take away Plasma Cannons and Lascannons as the tradeoff. Similarly you could take away Devastators to give them a cheapish unit of infantry with Power Weapons. Swap out Scouts and Tacticals for Crusaders. Merge Sternguard and Vanguard into a Swiss Army knife Sword Brethren unit. These sorts of changes are much easier to justify on a Chapter that isn’t just Ultramarines+1 since they can lose things as well as gain them without trashing the lore.

I think we are agreeing that unfortunately with BA, DA and SW codex being Marines +1 it just leaves vanilla marines instead feeling like the try again next edition codex.

It has yi be weaker than, Roid Rage marines and spacefurries in CC and worse than Emo Marines at shooting. So if the special codex's are balanced against the other factions vanilla marines (including BT) are automatically destined for a mid tier codex at best.

But BT really suck because what theirnchapter tactics help them with are things the vanilla marine codex sucks at hard.

Gitdakka wrote:


Can I ask why you can't make your sword brethren from the vanguard or sternguard or company veteran squads?
I fail to see what unit we can't use anymore.

The only wargear I miss is the holy orb of antioch because it was pretty cool, but not like I ever modelled one or those.

Absolutely you can take them as one of the various veteran options. However they are a wasted opportunity and they've lost their own unique flavour. (edited)

Compare them to the veteran options of other chapters however and it's just sad IMO. We have these beautiful models in production that still hold up looks wise but have no unique flavour compared to say Wulfen or Death company (I know these are not 1:1 comparisons).

How much would it have cost GW to have just one extra data slate in the codex for Sword Brethren? (How many data slates do the Ultramarine get compared to everyone else for example).

I'm not 100% against Black Templars being in the same codex as the others - It doesn't bother me we don't have our own codex, I just think the army has become a lot less interesting than it once was rules wise. It could literally be fixed right away with new chapter approved options for example.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

*Seriously, I would contend that Black Templars as a faction have suffered some of the worst treatment of any 40k army after Squats.

Second founding chapters should never have gotten a codex.

What about all of the second founding chapters that have never had a codex or special character ever?

Why no Codex for Blood Angels, Space Wolves or Dark Angels? These Chapters were also founded during the Second Founding after all.

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

*Seriously, I would contend that Black Templars as a faction have suffered some of the worst treatment of any 40k army after Squats.

Second founding chapters should never have gotten a codex.

What about all of the second founding chapters that have never had a codex or special character ever?

Why no Codex for Blood Angels, Space Wolves or Dark Angels? These Chapters were also founded during the Second Founding after all.

The chapters that retained the legion names are generally referred to as first founding chapters.

Whilst they did not technically exist as a chapter until the second founding their names and traditions predate the second founding.