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.

There is another thread in this forum proposing a much needed solution to the lacklustre Chapter Tactics that the Black Templars have. I saw some really great ideas from other people in that thread and I would love to talk about them as well as put forward my own suggestions. Black Templars should have really their own codex, among all the chapters they have the most reason to not be in the codex. Apart from the Space Wolves, but certainly more than the Blood Angels, the Dark Angels and their successors. Yet going forward let's assume we wont get one and see how much of the Eternal Crusade can be expressed through a Chapter Tactics rule; keeping in mind what kinds of traits other sub-factions have and not going overboard.

My first proposal for Chapter tactics:
Infantry Units and Dreanoughts may reroll failed failed charge rolls, and any model with a Power Sword, Power Axe or Power Maul has +1 attack at all times.

As someone pointed out to me it makes Vanguard awesome, though I disagree. I think it makes SWORD BRETHREN awesome.

I would love hear to your ideas and thoughts guys, to see if we can come up with something awesome.

Vanguard have different problems outside the Power Weapon thing.

The best auggeation, which was creative tpp, was that, when the enemy unit falls back, you make a D6 move towards the enemy falling back.

Something to help with ld on the big crusader units would be nice.

Melta bomb option for sword brothers in crusader units. Tac sergeants can take them, why not black templars?

+1A on the charge would be nice, or the option to move the unit towards enemy when they take losses like their old codex.

Lastly, the abhor the witch should be something built into the standard unit rules, not a strategem. Maybe a feel no pain similar rule against smite.

I rather liked "Reroll charge distance, enemy units can't fall back from combat." suggestion. It doesn't change the fact that our melee units usually can't fight their way out of a wet paper bag, but it's distinctive enough to give us a defined playstyle that's different from other Chapter Tactics. It doesn't change the fact that all the melee units in the book save for possibly Vanguard Veterans needs an overhaul, but it's a start.

This would bring back the exact issue fall back was implemented to address, namely the "dreadnought tarpit."

 skchsan wrote:
This would bring back the exact issue fall back was implemented to address, namely the "dreadnought tarpit."

That's why I like the idea of consolidating towards the fleeing unit instead of just not letting them run away. It fits the crusader theme more I feel, whereas that mechanic existing for units like Wyches keeps them unique and it seems more fitting for a quick unit Like them.

 skchsan wrote:
This would bring back the exact issue fall back was implemented to address, namely the "dreadnought tarpit."

Good. The removal of being able to lock shooting units in combat swung the balance pendulum so hard towards shooting that we now have to have melee units like infiltrating Khorne Berzerkers or Genestealers running 30" in a turn or Bloodletter bombs assaulting from deep strike in order to be viable in melee. Giving gunlines something to worry about for a change would do the game good.

Well if the enemy does fall back from combat one's own unit can move toward them and charge again in the next turn. I don't think the extra D6 inches of movement would be that helpful at all.

Could have something along the lines of a unit falling back from a black templar unit suffers d6 mortal wounds per 5 infantry models and 1d6 per unit with the dreadnought keyword.

Or we could just skip the RNG part and make it reliable instead. Like not letting people fall back.

Straight "no falling back + reroll charge" is too powerful as a chapter tactic. Perhaps the unit can't fall back unless it rolls a 4+? I think something like "reroll charge + unit can't lose more than one model in morale" would be better.

Chapter tactics aren't supposed to be my units just got 3x more effective, they are supposed to represent the way the force fights in the fluff.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Straight "no falling back + reroll charge" is too powerful as a chapter tactic. Perhaps the unit can't fall back unless it rolls a 4+? I think something like "reroll charge + unit can't lose more than one model in morale" would be better.

Chapter tactics aren't supposed to be my units just got 3x more effective, they are supposed to represent the way the force fights in the fluff.

This idea sounds pretty good. Not too powerful, not too weak.

Ultras have "can fall back and still shoot", which is far more powerful than stopping enemies from retreating from your crappy melee units.

Yes I do agree that the best fit would be a bonus to the actual combat power of Black Templars units.

The trick with giving a bonus to close combat is finding something that hasn't already been given to another army. Blood Angels have +1 to wound, Word Bearers have +1 attack. Rerolls would overlap with our character buffs. A +1 to hit would mean our Characters don't benefit.
At the moment I am wondering about a universal -1 improvement to AP in close combat. Mathematically it shouldn't be any more powerful than + 1 to hit or wound.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
I suppose the bonus should only occur in the fight phase for units that charged in the preceeding charge phase

Marksman224 wrote:
The trick with giving a bonus to close combat is finding something that hasn't already been given to another army

That's why I suggested dealing mortal wounds to retreating units. BT start to punish retreating units which is thematic. It also goes well with crusader squads because of the larger squad sizes. It might even be a bit too strong though.

Ahh yes. The mortal wounds for falling back would be unique and flavoursome. I was wanting to get around to talking about that one. D6 wounds would probably be too much, but rolling D6 for each model and suffering a mortal wound for each 1 or 6 would be fine.

I'd argue that being able to freely fall back from close combat and blasting the melee unit to bits is too strong in the first place; anything that makes the chaff units that dominate 8th edition worse is welcome. Enough with the obsession over random rolls though, give us a Chapter Tactic that actually makes our melee more consistent rather than adding yet another layer of randomness.

 An Actual Englishman wrote:
Straight "no falling back + reroll charge" is too powerful as a chapter tactic. Perhaps the unit can't fall back unless it rolls a 4+? I think something like "reroll charge + unit can't lose more than one model in morale" would be better.

Chapter tactics aren't supposed to be my units just got 3x more effective, they are supposed to represent the way the force fights in the fluff.

No, it's not. It's appropriate compensation for not getting chapter tactics on all units. The other chapter tactics, on average, are too weak. No die rolls. No compromise. If BT contact your unit, that unit is screwed. It's the only way to make opponents begin to respect assault.

In my opinion the fact that chapter tactics doesn't apply to all units is not something that needs to be compensated for. I think blocking any unit in combat from falling back would be too strong as well. Having it work on a 4+ would be lame though, having it work half the time or not at all. Any chapter tactics that's based on a dice roll should work on a per model basis not unit by unit, so that its effects will average out.

So how about each model in a unit that falls back takes a wound which can be saved?

I'm becoming more partial to my suggestion of an extra-1 AP for all close combat attacks. It feels right in a sense. I would much rather a chapter tactic that works on offensive power in the first instance, especially over something that triggers according to the opponent's choice.

Blocking units from falling back was how the game worked for 25 years. It's not too strong. The fall back mechanic is too strong.

Martel732 wrote:
Blocking units from falling back was how the game worked for 25 years. It's not too strong. The fall back mechanic is too strong.

I like the IDEA of fallback-it was kinda silly that you wanted your melee units to kill most, BUT NOT ALL of the people you were fighting.

The implementation needs work though.

And don't be saying "It was like this for 25 years, therefore we should keep it." That's not a good train of reasoning.

I didn't say that. There's precedent for this mechanic being in the game. BT would become a strong counter to several list styles. I see nothing wrong with that.

I'd rather see Fall Back actually fixed, than have one specific subset of Space Marines be able to counter it.

Rules as they stand now, this is a solid chapter tactic addition for BT. If we change fallback, we'll have to give them something else. +1 A on charge?

I would prefer not to have +1 A on the charge because Word Bearers already have that.

And World Eaters (and any Khorne Icon-wielding unit) get to buy our Chapter Tactic for 10 points. There's a limited amount of special rules that can apply to melee armies.

I really like the custode +1 attack per unit killed. That would be too powerful for fragile as glass SM so what about a flat +1A if a BT unit w/in 6" lost a model this turn in addition to re-rolling charges?

Approximation of zeal. 6" allows characters to take advantage. Sacrificial initiates become valuable again (because 11pts for a scout that can't forward deploy is dumb) Unique and provides decent tactical interaction (enemy has to prioritize units and BT has to set-up properly)

You have a good point AlmightyWalrus. Still, my latest idea would be unique as far as I can tell; what do you guys think of gaining -1 to AP for close combat attacks on the charge?

Disclaimer: I don’t actually play Black Templars. I play Celestial Lions, and in the past I’ve been using the Imperial Fists chapter tactics to represent them. However, I’m starting to think that the BTs would be a better fit for them.

Having said that, I like the mortal wounds on retreating units idea. That might work better as a stratagem though. The -1 AP is a good suggestion too. But here’s a thought. Some units across the game have the ability to gain an extra attack if they score a 6 or more to hit. Usually with shooting, but maybe the BTs could have a melee version?